sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

---

Bracket Matrix is my guide:
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

Cal has moved up to basically "first team out," but of course not all brackets update at the same time. If you look at the ones that have updated most recently we are in the majority of them. I suspect we would indeed be in the field by this matrix if we hold serve against Pitt.

Good link, thanks.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

---

Bracket Matrix is my guide:
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

Cal has moved up to basically "first team out," but of course not all brackets update at the same time. If you look at the ones that have updated most recently we are in the majority of them. I suspect we would indeed be in the field by this matrix if we hold serve against Pitt.

---

So looking at this matrix, it appears that the last "additional conference team" is TCU, the 4th 11 seed listed. That would mean that the group from the 12 to 16 seeds are all automatic bids from lesser ranked conferences. Does that kind of sound right?

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

---

Bracket Matrix is my guide:
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

Cal has moved up to basically "first team out," but of course not all brackets update at the same time. If you look at the ones that have updated most recently we are in the majority of them. I suspect we would indeed be in the field by this matrix if we hold serve against Pitt.

---

So looking at this matrix, it appears that the last "additional conference team" is TCU, the 4th 11 seed listed. That would mean that the group from the 12 to 16 seeds are all automatic bids from lesser ranked conferences. Does that kind of sound right?

---

Yes, these days the last at-larges tend to be 11 seeds. 12 and beyond are automatic qualifiers.

EDIT: I'd also add that even though TCU is listed with a slightly lower average seed, New Mexico looks like the team teetering on the edge as they are in far fewer brackets. I'm guessing if Cal went in it would be at their expense (as Lunardi had been saying).

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

---

Auburn's 35 Net kinda makes sense. They've played 16 Q1 and 4 Q2 games, winning 5&2, respectively. They've won all 8 of their Q3&4 games.

St. Mary's Net 22 is a a question mark to me. Lost all 3 of their Q1 games. 8-1 in Q2. They've played 17 Q3&4 teams, winning them all. Shouldn't their Net be offset by the weaker schedule?

Cal only played 13 Q3&4 games. And 14 Q1&2 games. 4 dubs in Q1. Tougher schedule than St. Mary's, but we also have more losses.

OC Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

---

Auburn's 35 Net kinda makes sense. They've played 16 Q1 and 4 Q2 games, winning 5&2, respectively. They've won all 8 of their Q3&4 games.

St. Mary's Net 22 is a a question mark to me. Lost all 3 of their Q1 games. 8-1 in Q2. They've played 17 Q3&4 teams, winning them all. Shouldn't their Net be offset by the weaker schedule?

Cal only played 13 Q3&4 games. And 14 Q1&2 games. 4 dubs in Q1. Tougher schedule than St. Mary's, but we also have more losses.

---

The NET ranking is different than the Quads, it takes into account the actual ranking of the opponent, rather than grouping them together and treating them the same. It is more like Ken Pom: https://kenpom.com/
St Mary's is 26-4 playing a schedule ranked #101 with a non conference schedule ranked #91. Ken Pom has them at #24. Their 4 losses were at Vanderbilt, Boise State on a neutral court, at Santa Clara and at Gonzaga. The "worst" loss was Boise, who is only 2 spots behind us in Ken Pom. They have good wins over Virginia Tech, Wichita State and Santa Clara at home. Their home game against Gonzaga tomorrow night is huge for them.

SM - dovetails with the discussion about marketing. Is it a hot ticket over in Orinda/Moraga/Walnut Creek area? AKA a fun thing to do over the hill? I mean tomorrow is HUGE in the WCC - is it sold out with students camping out ;-)

This is a good example of how the metrics seem to favor the top teams of mid majors

If we swapped conferences we would have had a great schedule with only a few tough teams such as zags and Santa Clara

SM would have had to play the entire ACC schedule

calumnus said:

---

OC Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

---

Auburn's 35 Net kinda makes sense. They've played 16 Q1 and 4 Q2 games, winning 5&2, respectively. They've won all 8 of their Q3&4 games.

St. Mary's Net 22 is a a question mark to me. Lost all 3 of their Q1 games. 8-1 in Q2. They've played 17 Q3&4 teams, winning them all. Shouldn't their Net be offset by the weaker schedule?

Cal only played 13 Q3&4 games. And 14 Q1&2 games. 4 dubs in Q1. Tougher schedule than St. Mary's, but we also have more losses.

---

The NET ranking is different than the Quads, it takes into account the actual ranking of the opponent, rather than grouping them together and treating them the same. It is more like Ken Pom: https://kenpom.com/
St Mary's is 26-4 playing a schedule ranked #101 with a non conference schedule ranked #91. Ken Pom has them at #24. Their 4 losses were at Vanderbilt, Boise State on a neutral court, at Santa Clara and at Gonzaga. The "worst" loss was Boise, who is only 2 spots behind us in Ken Pom. They have good wins over Virginia Tech, Wichita State and Santa Clara at home. Their home game against Gonzaga tomorrow night is huge for them.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

This is a good example of how the metrics seem to favor the top teams of mid majors

If we swapped conferences we would have had a great schedule with only a few tough teams such as zags and Santa Clara

SM would have had to play the entire ACC schedule

calumnus said:

---

OC Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

---

Auburn's 35 Net kinda makes sense. They've played 16 Q1 and 4 Q2 games, winning 5&2, respectively. They've won all 8 of their Q3&4 games.

St. Mary's Net 22 is a a question mark to me. Lost all 3 of their Q1 games. 8-1 in Q2. They've played 17 Q3&4 teams, winning them all. Shouldn't their Net be offset by the weaker schedule?

Cal only played 13 Q3&4 games. And 14 Q1&2 games. 4 dubs in Q1. Tougher schedule than St. Mary's, but we also have more losses.

---

The NET ranking is different than the Quads, it takes into account the actual ranking of the opponent, rather than grouping them together and treating them the same. It is more like Ken Pom: https://kenpom.com/
St Mary's is 26-4 playing a schedule ranked #101 with a non conference schedule ranked #91. Ken Pom has them at #24. Their 4 losses were at Vanderbilt, Boise State on a neutral court, at Santa Clara and at Gonzaga. The "worst" loss was Boise, who is only 2 spots behind us in Ken Pom. They have good wins over Virginia Tech, Wichita State and Santa Clara at home. Their home game against Gonzaga tomorrow night is huge for them.

---

---

The algorithms rank teams based on each team they play without regard to conference.

The top ranked teams in NET and Ken Pom are almost all power conference teams. Gonzaga is an exception but they are 28-2 and fill their OOC schedule with B1G and SEC teams on the road or in neutral venues and then go and beat them. Their only losses are to Michigan and to Shantay Legans' Portland!

St. Mary's is similar. Again, what is dragging us down is our extremely weak OOC schedule, combined with losses to Syracuse, VT, FSU…. We lost to Kansas State, they are 2-13 and in 15th lace in the B-12. St Mary's beat VT. You can say the WCC is weaker than the ACC, but their top teams play a strong OOC schedule and win. We played an OOC schedule that is FAR weaker than the WCC. And we are just over .500 in the ACC. Hence our relative rankings.

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

This is a good example of how the metrics seem to favor the top teams of mid majors

If we swapped conferences we would have had a great schedule with only a few tough teams such as zags and Santa Clara

SM would have had to play the entire ACC schedule

calumnus said:

---

OC Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

---

Auburn's 35 Net kinda makes sense. They've played 16 Q1 and 4 Q2 games, winning 5&2, respectively. They've won all 8 of their Q3&4 games.

St. Mary's Net 22 is a a question mark to me. Lost all 3 of their Q1 games. 8-1 in Q2. They've played 17 Q3&4 teams, winning them all. Shouldn't their Net be offset by the weaker schedule?

Cal only played 13 Q3&4 games. And 14 Q1&2 games. 4 dubs in Q1. Tougher schedule than St. Mary's, but we also have more losses.

---

The NET ranking is different than the Quads, it takes into account the actual ranking of the opponent, rather than grouping them together and treating them the same. It is more like Ken Pom: https://kenpom.com/
St Mary's is 26-4 playing a schedule ranked #101 with a non conference schedule ranked #91. Ken Pom has them at #24. Their 4 losses were at Vanderbilt, Boise State on a neutral court, at Santa Clara and at Gonzaga. The "worst" loss was Boise, who is only 2 spots behind us in Ken Pom. They have good wins over Virginia Tech, Wichita State and Santa Clara at home. Their home game against Gonzaga tomorrow night is huge for them.

---

---

The algorithms rank teams based on each team they play without regard to conference.

The top ranked teams in NET and Ken Pom are almost all power conference teams. Gonzaga is an exception but they are 28-2 and fill their OOC schedule with B1G and SEC teams on the road or in neutral venues and then go and beat them. Their only losses are to Michigan and to Shantay Legans' Portland!

St. Mary's is similar. Again, what is dragging us down is our extremely weak OOC schedule, combined with losses to Syracuse, VT, FSU…. St Mary's beat VT. You can say the WCC is weaker than the ACC, but their top teams play a strong OOC schedule and win. We played an OOC schedule that is FAR weaker than the WCC. And we are just over .500 in the ACC. Hence our relative rankings.

---

Ok, explain this Ohio

look at their schedule... and three of those wins were against D2 teams

How can they be in the tourney with a NET 10 points higher than us, and ranked 21 in the Nation???

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/193/miami-oh-redhawks

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

This is a good example of how the metrics seem to favor the top teams of mid majors

If we swapped conferences we would have had a great schedule with only a few tough teams such as zags and Santa Clara

SM would have had to play the entire ACC schedule

calumnus said:

---

OC Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

---

Auburn's 35 Net kinda makes sense. They've played 16 Q1 and 4 Q2 games, winning 5&2, respectively. They've won all 8 of their Q3&4 games.

St. Mary's Net 22 is a a question mark to me. Lost all 3 of their Q1 games. 8-1 in Q2. They've played 17 Q3&4 teams, winning them all. Shouldn't their Net be offset by the weaker schedule?

Cal only played 13 Q3&4 games. And 14 Q1&2 games. 4 dubs in Q1. Tougher schedule than St. Mary's, but we also have more losses.

---

The NET ranking is different than the Quads, it takes into account the actual ranking of the opponent, rather than grouping them together and treating them the same. It is more like Ken Pom: https://kenpom.com/
St Mary's is 26-4 playing a schedule ranked #101 with a non conference schedule ranked #91. Ken Pom has them at #24. Their 4 losses were at Vanderbilt, Boise State on a neutral court, at Santa Clara and at Gonzaga. The "worst" loss was Boise, who is only 2 spots behind us in Ken Pom. They have good wins over Virginia Tech, Wichita State and Santa Clara at home. Their home game against Gonzaga tomorrow night is huge for them.

---

---

The algorithms rank teams based on each team they play without regard to conference.

The top ranked teams in NET and Ken Pom are almost all power conference teams. Gonzaga is an exception but they are 28-2 and fill their OOC schedule with B1G and SEC teams on the road or in neutral venues and then go and beat them. Their only losses are to Michigan and to Shantay Legans' Portland!

St. Mary's is similar. Again, what is dragging us down is our extremely weak OOC schedule, combined with losses to Syracuse, VT, FSU…. St Mary's beat VT. You can say the WCC is weaker than the ACC, but their top teams play a strong OOC schedule and win. We played an OOC schedule that is FAR weaker than the WCC. And we are just over .500 in the ACC. Hence our relative rankings.

---

Ok, explain this Ohio

look at their schedule... and three of those wins were against D2 teams

How can they be in the tourney with a NET 10 points higher than us, and ranked 21 in the Nation???

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/193/miami-oh-redhawks

---

Miami of Ohio is #85 in Ken Pom, so they are a really good example of a team that the NET favors. Mostly it is because they are 29-0 and unlike Ken Pom, NET does not look at the scores, just W/Ls. The algorithm just looks at the W/L results and tries to rank all of the teams based on the transitive property. It only knows that they are better than every team they have played. Theoretically they could be the best team in the country. It is only because of their incredibly weak schedule that they are #48. Ken Pom uses the additional information of how much they beat teams by and compares that to how much other teams beat those teams by. So I agree with you on that one. They should be closer to #85 and well behind us, but NET is overrating their 29-0 undefeated record. Note that the poll overrates them even more since they are ranked #21. That shows the benefit of using the algorithms. Only an algorithm that uses more data is generally better than one that intentionally does not.

We only need to worry about them if they are not the automatic qualifier for their conference.

If Miami of Ohio is undefeated and knocks us out... That's the way the cookie crumbles. 30 something and 0 has to mean something

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

---

Bracket Matrix is my guide:
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

Cal has moved up to basically "first team out," but of course not all brackets update at the same time. If you look at the ones that have updated most recently we are in the majority of them. I suspect we would indeed be in the field by this matrix if we hold serve against Pitt.

---

Cal is now the last team in.

bencgilmore said:

---

If Miami of Ohio is undefeated and knocks us out... That's the way the cookie crumbles. 30 something and 0 has to mean something

---

If they're undefeated then they won the conference tournament and would be in anyway. Where it could get interesting is if they lose one game in the conference tournament. Do they get an at-large?

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

This is a good example of how the metrics seem to favor the top teams of mid majors

If we swapped conferences we would have had a great schedule with only a few tough teams such as zags and Santa Clara

SM would have had to play the entire ACC schedule

calumnus said:

---

OC Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

---

Auburn's 35 Net kinda makes sense. They've played 16 Q1 and 4 Q2 games, winning 5&2, respectively. They've won all 8 of their Q3&4 games.

St. Mary's Net 22 is a a question mark to me. Lost all 3 of their Q1 games. 8-1 in Q2. They've played 17 Q3&4 teams, winning them all. Shouldn't their Net be offset by the weaker schedule?

Cal only played 13 Q3&4 games. And 14 Q1&2 games. 4 dubs in Q1. Tougher schedule than St. Mary's, but we also have more losses.

---

The NET ranking is different than the Quads, it takes into account the actual ranking of the opponent, rather than grouping them together and treating them the same. It is more like Ken Pom: https://kenpom.com/
St Mary's is 26-4 playing a schedule ranked #101 with a non conference schedule ranked #91. Ken Pom has them at #24. Their 4 losses were at Vanderbilt, Boise State on a neutral court, at Santa Clara and at Gonzaga. The "worst" loss was Boise, who is only 2 spots behind us in Ken Pom. They have good wins over Virginia Tech, Wichita State and Santa Clara at home. Their home game against Gonzaga tomorrow night is huge for them.

---

---

The algorithms rank teams based on each team they play without regard to conference.

The top ranked teams in NET and Ken Pom are almost all power conference teams. Gonzaga is an exception but they are 28-2 and fill their OOC schedule with B1G and SEC teams on the road or in neutral venues and then go and beat them. Their only losses are to Michigan and to Shantay Legans' Portland!

St. Mary's is similar. Again, what is dragging us down is our extremely weak OOC schedule, combined with losses to Syracuse, VT, FSU…. St Mary's beat VT. You can say the WCC is weaker than the ACC, but their top teams play a strong OOC schedule and win. We played an OOC schedule that is FAR weaker than the WCC. And we are just over .500 in the ACC. Hence our relative rankings.

---

Ok, explain this Ohio

look at their schedule... and three of those wins were against D2 teams

How can they be in the tourney with a NET 10 points higher than us, and ranked 21 in the Nation???

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/193/miami-oh-redhawks

---

Miami of Ohio is #85 in Ken Pom, so they are a really good example of a team that the NET favors. Mostly it is because they are 29-0 and unlike Ken Pom, NET does not look at the scores, just W/Ls. The algorithm just looks at the W/L results and tries to rank all of the teams based on the transitive property. It only knows that they are better than every team they have played. Theoretically they could be the best team in the country. It is only because of their incredibly weak schedule that they are #48. Ken Pom uses the additional information of how much they beat teams by and compares that to how much other teams beat those teams by. So I agree with you on that one. They should be closer to #85 and well behind us, but NET is overrating their 29-0 undefeated record. Note that the poll overrates them even more since they are ranked #21. That shows the benefit of using the algorithms. Only an algorithm that uses more data is generally better than one that intentionally does not.

We only need to worry about them if they are not the automatic qualifier for their conference.

---

The problem is that KenPom basically attributes teams performing over their expected efficiency to just be luck and it doesn't seem to actually value wins and losses that much. We should be much higher than teams like Providence who have losing records or Washington but we aren't. And in regards to Saint Mary's we have a tougher schedule than they do. We play a tough team every game. Even the worst ACC teams are still decent teams. SMC played a few decent opponents to open the year but the average WCC team is much worse than the average ACC team. Their overall SOS ranks lower than ours. Net also takes into account efficiency but it definitely overvalues the top mid major teams as they have fewer wins due to their lesser SOS.

Onebearofpower said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

This is a good example of how the metrics seem to favor the top teams of mid majors

If we swapped conferences we would have had a great schedule with only a few tough teams such as zags and Santa Clara

SM would have had to play the entire ACC schedule

calumnus said:

---

OC Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

---

Auburn's 35 Net kinda makes sense. They've played 16 Q1 and 4 Q2 games, winning 5&2, respectively. They've won all 8 of their Q3&4 games.

St. Mary's Net 22 is a a question mark to me. Lost all 3 of their Q1 games. 8-1 in Q2. They've played 17 Q3&4 teams, winning them all. Shouldn't their Net be offset by the weaker schedule?

Cal only played 13 Q3&4 games. And 14 Q1&2 games. 4 dubs in Q1. Tougher schedule than St. Mary's, but we also have more losses.

---

The NET ranking is different than the Quads, it takes into account the actual ranking of the opponent, rather than grouping them together and treating them the same. It is more like Ken Pom: https://kenpom.com/
St Mary's is 26-4 playing a schedule ranked #101 with a non conference schedule ranked #91. Ken Pom has them at #24. Their 4 losses were at Vanderbilt, Boise State on a neutral court, at Santa Clara and at Gonzaga. The "worst" loss was Boise, who is only 2 spots behind us in Ken Pom. They have good wins over Virginia Tech, Wichita State and Santa Clara at home. Their home game against Gonzaga tomorrow night is huge for them.

---

---

The algorithms rank teams based on each team they play without regard to conference.

The top ranked teams in NET and Ken Pom are almost all power conference teams. Gonzaga is an exception but they are 28-2 and fill their OOC schedule with B1G and SEC teams on the road or in neutral venues and then go and beat them. Their only losses are to Michigan and to Shantay Legans' Portland!

St. Mary's is similar. Again, what is dragging us down is our extremely weak OOC schedule, combined with losses to Syracuse, VT, FSU…. St Mary's beat VT. You can say the WCC is weaker than the ACC, but their top teams play a strong OOC schedule and win. We played an OOC schedule that is FAR weaker than the WCC. And we are just over .500 in the ACC. Hence our relative rankings.

---

Ok, explain this Ohio

look at their schedule... and three of those wins were against D2 teams

How can they be in the tourney with a NET 10 points higher than us, and ranked 21 in the Nation???

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/193/miami-oh-redhawks

---

Miami of Ohio is #85 in Ken Pom, so they are a really good example of a team that the NET favors. Mostly it is because they are 29-0 and unlike Ken Pom, NET does not look at the scores, just W/Ls. The algorithm just looks at the W/L results and tries to rank all of the teams based on the transitive property. It only knows that they are better than every team they have played. Theoretically they could be the best team in the country. It is only because of their incredibly weak schedule that they are #48. Ken Pom uses the additional information of how much they beat teams by and compares that to how much other teams beat those teams by. So I agree with you on that one. They should be closer to #85 and well behind us, but NET is overrating their 29-0 undefeated record. Note that the poll overrates them even more since they are ranked #21. That shows the benefit of using the algorithms. Only an algorithm that uses more data is generally better than one that intentionally does not.

We only need to worry about them if they are not the automatic qualifier for their conference.

---

The problem is that KenPom basically attributes teams performing over their expected efficiency to just be luck and it doesn't seem to actually value wins and losses that much. We should be much higher than teams like Providence who have losing records or Washington but we aren't. And in regards to Saint Mary's we have a tougher schedule than they do. We play a tough team every game. Even the worst ACC teams are still decent teams. SMC played a few decent opponents to open the year but the average WCC team is much worse than the average ACC team. Their overall SOS ranks lower than ours. Net also takes into account efficiency but it definitely overvalues the top mid major teams as they have fewer wins due to their lesser SOS.

---

Yes, you could say that Ken Pom is a predictive model. It is predicting the results if two teams were to play. It is ranking how good they are on an absolute level. How does team A's offense match up against team B's defense and how does team B's offense match up against team A's defense. Usually, the better team wins, but sometimes they don't. Sometimes Shantay Legans' Portland beats Gonzaga. The "Luck" factor is derived. A coin flip should be 50% heads. Any deviation from that after 20 flips is deemed "luck" (or bad luck). The odds of heads on the next flip is still 50%.

According to Ken Pom, 29-0 Miami of Ohio is the 14th luckiest team in America, and when you look at how many close, or OT, wins they got, that makes sense, if you have 365 people flipping coins 30 times, someone might get heads 29 times in a row. But if you are going to bet on the next flip, the odds are still 50/50.

That is why, to reward wins, lucky or otherwise, in addition to NET, the Committee looks at the Quad results.

calumnus said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

This is a good example of how the metrics seem to favor the top teams of mid majors

If we swapped conferences we would have had a great schedule with only a few tough teams such as zags and Santa Clara

SM would have had to play the entire ACC schedule

calumnus said:

---

OC Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I don't get the Aubrun love. 6-9 in conference. ESPN et al have too much SEC/BigTen love and mix up basketball and football.

---

Super tough schedule results in good metrics in the NET and elsewhere. It's not just the SEC slate, they also played Houston, Arizona, Michigan, Purdue, St. John's, NC State.

---

Auburn is 5-11 Q1, 2-2 Q2, #35 NET

We're 4-4 Q1 (our last win bumped SMU to Q2) and 2-4 Q2, #57 NET.

Still, more pundits are putting us in already at #11 seed, but a lot of the bigger outlets are slower to react and update online, I think the majority will have us in by Monday if we beat Pitt.

The final bracket forecast of February from @tsnmike 🚨

Is anyone seeded too high or too low at this point in the season? pic.twitter.com/W18iCXPCcb

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) February 27, 2026

---

Auburn's 35 Net kinda makes sense. They've played 16 Q1 and 4 Q2 games, winning 5&2, respectively. They've won all 8 of their Q3&4 games.

St. Mary's Net 22 is a a question mark to me. Lost all 3 of their Q1 games. 8-1 in Q2. They've played 17 Q3&4 teams, winning them all. Shouldn't their Net be offset by the weaker schedule?

Cal only played 13 Q3&4 games. And 14 Q1&2 games. 4 dubs in Q1. Tougher schedule than St. Mary's, but we also have more losses.

---

The NET ranking is different than the Quads, it takes into account the actual ranking of the opponent, rather than grouping them together and treating them the same. It is more like Ken Pom: https://kenpom.com/
St Mary's is 26-4 playing a schedule ranked #101 with a non conference schedule ranked #91. Ken Pom has them at #24. Their 4 losses were at Vanderbilt, Boise State on a neutral court, at Santa Clara and at Gonzaga. The "worst" loss was Boise, who is only 2 spots behind us in Ken Pom. They have good wins over Virginia Tech, Wichita State and Santa Clara at home. Their home game against Gonzaga tomorrow night is huge for them.

---

---

The algorithms rank teams based on each team they play without regard to conference.

The top ranked teams in NET and Ken Pom are almost all power conference teams. Gonzaga is an exception but they are 28-2 and fill their OOC schedule with B1G and SEC teams on the road or in neutral venues and then go and beat them. Their only losses are to Michigan and to Shantay Legans' Portland!

St. Mary's is similar. Again, what is dragging us down is our extremely weak OOC schedule, combined with losses to Syracuse, VT, FSU…. St Mary's beat VT. You can say the WCC is weaker than the ACC, but their top teams play a strong OOC schedule and win. We played an OOC schedule that is FAR weaker than the WCC. And we are just over .500 in the ACC. Hence our relative rankings.

---

Ok, explain this Ohio

look at their schedule... and three of those wins were against D2 teams

How can they be in the tourney with a NET 10 points higher than us, and ranked 21 in the Nation???

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/193/miami-oh-redhawks

---

Miami of Ohio is #85 in Ken Pom, so they are a really good example of a team that the NET favors. Mostly it is because they are 29-0 and unlike Ken Pom, NET does not look at the scores, just W/Ls. The algorithm just looks at the W/L results and tries to rank all of the teams based on the transitive property. It only knows that they are better than every team they have played. Theoretically they could be the best team in the country. It is only because of their incredibly weak schedule that they are #48. Ken Pom uses the additional information of how much they beat teams by and compares that to how much other teams beat those teams by. So I agree with you on that one. They should be closer to #85 and well behind us, but NET is overrating their 29-0 undefeated record. Note that the poll overrates them even more since they are ranked #21. That shows the benefit of using the algorithms. Only an algorithm that uses more data is generally better than one that intentionally does not.

We only need to worry about them if they are not the automatic qualifier for their conference.

---

The problem is that KenPom basically attributes teams performing over their expected efficiency to just be luck and it doesn't seem to actually value wins and losses that much. We should be much higher than teams like Providence who have losing records or Washington but we aren't. And in regards to Saint Mary's we have a tougher schedule than they do. We play a tough team every game. Even the worst ACC teams are still decent teams. SMC played a few decent opponents to open the year but the average WCC team is much worse than the average ACC team. Their overall SOS ranks lower than ours. Net also takes into account efficiency but it definitely overvalues the top mid major teams as they have fewer wins due to their lesser SOS.

---

Yes, you could say that Ken Pom is a predictive model. It is predicting the results if two teams were to play. It is ranking how good they are on an absolute level. How does team A's offense match up against team B's defense and how does team B's offense match up against team A's defense. Usually, the better team wins, but sometimes they don't. Sometimes Shantay Legans' Portland beats Gonzaga. The "Luck" factor is derived. A coin flip should be 50% heads. Any deviation from that after 20 flips is deemed "luck" (or bad luck). The odds of heads on the next flip is still 50%.

According to Ken Pom, 29-0 Miami of Ohio is the 14th luckiest team in America, and when you look at how many close, or OT, wins they got, that makes sense, if you have 365 people flipping coins 30 times, someone might get heads 29 times in a row. But if you are going to bet on the next flip, the odds are still 50/50.

That is why, to reward wins, lucky or otherwise, in addition to NET, the Committee looks at the Quad results.

---

The thing is the "luck" factor is just the residual difference that the model can't explain. Like Cal isn't lucky that they are a top ten team in the nation in FT% it's a skill because they practice it and is part of the reason why we win close games. The model just predicts based on its algorithm and then when teams outperform it just categorizes it as luck. But we haven't been lucky just because we beat teams who have better metrics than us. You have to go out there and win and we have executed better than other teams on given days. The fact that .500 Washington is still above us is absurd. They have proven they are a mediocre team. Miami OH is not a lucky team. Sure there is luck always to winning 29 games in a row but it's not flipping a coin the players are playing the game and that team knows how to win close games. KenPom uses a distribution to determine how often you win games when in unlikely scenarios. But nothing about us coming back down 16 on the Road vs our biggest rival was luck. We made big shots and defended well. Anyway as you can tell I disagree with our KenPom to say the least.
Tldr: Luck in KenPom is basically unexplained statistical difference in play vs predicted. It's not luck as in losing on a half court shot. Which actually could have a very negligible effect on the luck stat.

Is it possible that the algorithms and the fact that non-power conference champions get into the dance isn't a process focused on allowing the best teams in, but to create "Cinderella" opportunities? It's a Cinderella story that, in part, makes the tournament compelling. If you are a team on the bubble from a major conference you may not offer what the tournament is all about.

I took a peek at the standings and now that NC State just lost (assuming we win out) we will likely be the 6 or 7 seed.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Is it possible that the algorithms and the fact that non-power conference champions get into the dance isn't a process focused on allowing the best teams in, but to create "Cinderella" opportunities? It's a Cinderella story that, in part, makes the tournament compelling. If you are a team on the bubble from a major conference you may not offer what the tournament is all about.

---

The conference champions making it automatically is just fair. The vast majority of the at large teams are from power conferences. We are talking about the ACC getting 8 teams in.

Metrics update.

#64 in the Net
#52 in the WAB.
#66 in Torvik
#73 in Kenpom
Some work to do according to EvanMiya

What this means. Our metrics suck and would not get us into the tournament currently, however these metrics love awarding teams that win on the road no matter how bad the team is. If you dominate them, you might see yourself move up 10 - 15 spots. It will be very important to beat GTech by 10+ and beat Wake Forest on the road (We need to play our A game through this road trip).

If we beat both, our WAB will be around 0.6 which would be good for #44 in the WAB. Kenpom will likely be at #57, torvik at #51, net at #52, and just out of the field according to EvanMiya.

So, that sets up a must win in the ACC tourney against SMU. Win that and we see our metrics go up and we get put in the field!

Btw, CBS still has us as the last 4 in. Let's cheer on MSU to beat Indiana and Purdue to beat Ohio State