Well, the new Bauertology schedule is off to a swimming start.
You may recall in the most recent Bauertology bracket from Monday that I stated I would be posting new Bauer’s Bubble Watch articles every Wednesday, starting this week, and new Bauertology brackets every Friday. Neither of those things happened.
Part of it is me forgetting how busy work gets around this time of year (those high school basketball tournaments aren’t going to cover themselves!), and part of it is underestimating how much one big day of results can change the entire perspective of a team’s status or even the bracket as a whole.
I had about 50% of my Bubble Watch article written entering Tuesday evening, preparing to write the rest as the day’s games progressed. At this point, I’d already written very nice things about teams like Virginia, Texas A&M, and Indiana State… only for each of them to be absolutely embarrassed the night before my write-up was supposed to be published. (It already took me 30 minutes to get this paragraph about you just the way I want it—why are you making me write it again!?)
With Tuesday evenings typically serving as the busiest day of hoops among weekdays, I think it’s in my best interest to shift the Bubble Watch articles to a Tuesday morning release, giving me plenty of time on the not-so-hectic days of Sunday and Monday to get the darn thing written up. So here’s your new tentative Bauertology schedule going forward:
- Mondays: Bauertology
- Tuesdays: Bauer’s Bubble Watch (starting this Tuesday… I promise!)
- Fridays/Saturdays (depending on availability): Bauertology
Hopefully I’ll actually be able to commit to the schedule this time around instead of making empty promises… fingers crossed.
…Anyway, what a huge Saturday it is!
Today brings the much-anticipated top 16 preview show, where the NCAA Tournament selection committee kindly provides us a little glimpse of where the top of the bracket stands. This preview tends to be pretty helpful for figuring out how things will shape up a month down the road (such as last year’s under-seeding of UConn in both reveals) and the introduction of the preview a few years back has correlated with higher bracketologist Paymon scores for the final bracket over the past few Marches.
With that reveal swiftly approaching, here’s where I think the top 16 will stand today:
I feel pretty good about how this thing shook out, but of course, there are still some burning questions on the mind that I can’t wait to see answered:
- Who’s #2 overall: UConn or Houston? The committee seemed to really like the Cougars being #1 in NET and all the predictive metrics last year, and that’s where they sit this year, but I think the overall feeling is that UConn is the “better” team, whether or not you can quantify that. As for that quantification part, the Huskies are ahead in SOR and have 13 Q1/Q2 wins to Houston’s 9; we’ll see if that pushes them over the top.
- How will the committee evaluate Kansas vs. Iowa State for the 2 seeds? From a long-distance glance at the team sheet, I think the Cyclones probably have the superior case: about 10 spots higher in the predictive metrics, no Q3 losses, and have some big-time road wins in Quad 1 that Kansas lacks. But two huge things stick out to support the Jayhawks, 1) their four victories over other protected seeds (Houston, UConn, Tennessee, Baylor) and their non-conference strength of schedule of 40th in comparison to Iowa State’s putrid 322nd-ranked NCSOS. 322nd! That’d be a horrible precedent to establish, rewarding a team with a top-2 seed despite presenting themselves absolutely no challenge in the part of the schedule that they can control. I hope, for the sake of college basketball’s future, that the committee will take the Jayhawks.
- What will be the committee’s stance on Duke vs. Alabama/Auburn? The Crimson Tide and Tigers have basically inseparable résumés—right next to each other in NET, right next to each other in the metrics, subpar Q1 outputs but very strong performances in Quad 2 to go with all those aforementioned metrics placing in the top 14 and most in the top 10. Duke, meanwhile, lags behind in a number of ways: no metric higher than 12th, 1-2 in Quad 2, and an ugly Q3 loss to Georgia Tech… but that 5-2 Q1 total is awfully shiny looking, ain’t it? So what will the committee go for? The more balanced-looking profiles of Alabama and Auburn with very high-end metrics and disappointing Q1 play? Or the more uneven overall résumé of Duke that looks really good at the top?
- Finally, what will the committee be looking at for the final couple spots? I’ve got Wisconsin, Illinois, and Clemson filling up the rest of the 4 line, placed in order of confidence, truly. Wisconsin’s been on a tumble lately, but the overall numbers really don’t look that bad next to Duke’s; they should be fine. Illinois I figure makes the cut with all of their metrics looking the part of a top-4 seed… it’s the 0-4 Quad 1A total (their best win probably being neutral vs. FAU) that gives me hesitation. And as for Clemson, the Tigers have the high-end marks that merit a top-4 seed, with their road wins over Alabama and North Carolina being two of the best wins that any team in the nation possesses. But their predictive numbers still lag behind a bit, and—unfair or not—there may still be a bit of a stigma around Clemson given their early struggles in conference play. You’d hope the committee would take the overall body of work over the perception surrounding a team, but you can never be sure.
- If some of the teams I’ve got in the top 16 are out, who’s in instead? I think San Diego State is a prime candidate, with everything on their team sheet looking rather tidy, save for maybe a really big “splash” win to point to. Creighton’s also got very strong quality metrics and a 6-4 road record but could be a harder sell with results metrics nearing 30th and just one win over a NET top-45 team. Then there’s Dayton with the inverse of Creighton—strong résumé numbers, so-so predictive numbers—but I find it hard to believe the Flyers will be given respect when, as of writing, none of their victories have come against at-large teams. Finally, there’s South Carolina, who had a very good argument prior to this week’s 40-point drubbing at Auburn. But after that loss, I don’t think you can justify a top-4 seed for a team sitting 50th in the NET with predictives that rank equal or worse. The only way I see them in is if the selection committee had their top 16 ready to go by Wednesday morning (which isn’t far-fetched if you remember last year’s head-scratching reveal), but I don’t think that’ll happen this time around. If one of these teams were to sneak into the top 16 and kick one of my projected squads out, I’d bet on it being the Aztecs.
Aside from the preview show, we’ve got a fantastic day of hoops action ahead! So strap in for some college basketball fun, and check out the full Bauertology projection for Saturday, Feb. 17 while you’re at it.
