Bubble Watch

Updated WAB



41

Missouri

SEC

1.22

42

VCU

Atlantic 10

0.99

43

NC State

ACC

0.81

44

Auburn

SEC

0.35

45

SMU

ACC

0.07

46

Texas

SEC

-0.03

47

Oklahoma

SEC

-0.17

48

McNeese

Southland

-0.18

49

San Diego St.

Mountain West

-0.29

50

New Mexico

Mountain West

-0.38
 
Texas, Duke, Arizona, Indiana, Auburn, Texas A&M have the same number of quad 4 games as OU (7). Ou has more quad 2 games played and less quad 3

Kentucky has 6 quad 4 games. 2 less quad 2 but 2 more quad 3.

It’s not like OU is the only team playing 7 quad 4 games.

OU’s SOS is 32. That’s not bad.

Again, what we are discussing here is noncon SOS, because the committee places more emphasis on that. The Q3 games are the ones coaches can control, because they generally are your noncon games.
 
I'm going to kick myself as soon as I hear the answer because I usually can figure this out, but on Torvik, some teams, including OU, have "N4O" listed by them, for Next Four Out. What I don't get is that we have that designation even though he has us currently as in the field. Anyone know what gives?
 
St Louis getting hammered by GW right now.....down 16 with just under 5 minutes left in the 1st half. Not good.
They and VCU are the only two teams in that league with an at large case, so definitely want one of them to win the tourney. Ideally, one wins it and the other flops early, but having them both make the final would ensure no bid thief from the A10.
 
They and VCU are the only two teams in that league with an at large case, so definitely want one of them to win the tourney. Ideally, one wins it and the other flops early, but having them both make the final would ensure no bid thief from the A10.
Need St Louis to run the table and VCU get knocked out today or tomorrow. Would make it probably a 1 bid league.
 
I'm going to kick myself as soon as I hear the answer because I usually can figure this out, but on Torvik, some teams, including OU, have "N4O" listed by them, for Next Four Out. What I don't get is that we have that designation even though he has us currently as in the field. Anyone know what gives?
I noticed that too on his latest T-Ranketology. The only thing I can figure out is that those sub-designations, e.g. N4O, F4O, 10, 11, etc. are lagging behind his projections because those designations are what's current ("Current Matrix seed") vs. what he predicts (see note at the top: "Note: all ranks are projections, not current ranks." Another example is TX with "11." OU is the only team near the bottom that exceeds the sub-designation (11 vs. N4O), and TX is the only team that falls below (F4O vs. 11). However, there are several others that differ, e.g. ISU 2 vs. 3, UVA 3 vs. 4, Vandy 4 vs. 5, etc.
 
I noticed that too on his latest T-Ranketology. The only thing I can figure out is that those sub-designations, e.g. N4O, F4O, 10, 11, etc. are lagging behind his projections because those designations are what's current ("Current Matrix seed") vs. what he predicts (see note at the top: "Note: all ranks are projections, not current ranks." Another example is TX with "11." OU is the only team that exceeds the sub-designation (11 vs. N4O), and TX is the only team that falls below (F4O vs. 11).
Thanks, I wondered if it was something like that. Torvik is awesome but I wish he would make things a little clearer -- he also has asterisks beside some teams without a key to explain what they mean.
 
Back
Top