Franketology: March 3, 2025
I riled up VCU Twitter this afternoon with this tweet:
I stand by it.
Coming into today, BracketMatrix.com has VCU as the top 11-seed, squarely in at-large territory. Naturally, I have some thoughts. First, this might just be a quirky anomaly. All but 1 bracket has VCU you in. This is not necessarily because VCU is an at-large lock, but It may be that many bracketologists have them as an 11-seed auto bid, just behind the Last 4 In, also on the 11-seed line. If that’s true, just a few bracketologists pushing placing VCU on the 10 line (indeed in some cases the 9(!) seed line, could pull that average from the first auto-bid 11 (behind the last 4 in) to the first 11 seed, at-large territory before the last 4 in. I think that’s definitely a factor.
But as you may notice, there’s still several Bracket Matrix members that have VCU squarely in the at-large field, with 31 of 63 brackets that had VCU in the field had them on the 9 or 10 line. Two brave souls of that 63 (soon to be 3 when the Matrix updates to include my bracket), Bracket WAG and 5 Star Bets. Neither are particularly high in the Matrix, but Bracket WAG has been doing this for a long time, so it is reassuring to see he’s with me on this.
Link to spreadsheet right here.
I had a lengthy explainer here re: why VCU is not an at large team, which I accidentally lost like an idiot. I’m not doing it again. Long story short: all the teams in the same range as them from a resume metrics perspective have far more quality wins. Yes, VCU has a nice Q1 win percentage, .500 (1-1). But it’s only 1-1. Just look at their brothers-in-mid-major-arms UCSD and Drake, who are 2-1 and 1-0 in Q1 respectively. UCSD even has a Q1A win and both UCSD and Drake have a win over the field each. The committee rewards teams that challenge themselves. VCU has not. Their conference has certainly let them down to some extent, especially Dayton, but the committee doesn’t grade on a curve.
Another major reason…the Q4 loss. VCU has a really bad loss to Seton Hall dragging its resume down. If they got an at-large bid, they’d almost certainly be the only team in the bracket with a Q4 loss. Additionally, the strength of schedule of 144 is higher than any bubble team by 60 spots (84 is the next highest, not counting auto-bids Drake and UCSD who are 203 & 208 respectively).
Now, there’s some talk about how a bunch of VCU’s wins are right on the borderline. And that’s all well and good, but none of them are going to bump up to Q1A, and Seton Hall going from just barely wrong side of 200, to just barely right side of 200—while highly unlikely with their remaining games against UConn and Creighton—would be a small distinction. But, I will always approach every resume with an open mind. If and when things all break VCU’s way, and the get a couple more Q1 wins, I’ll re-evaluate at that time. It’s possible that could push their resume metrics into a territory where they can’t be denied. Only time will tell.
And with that, here’s today’s Franketology:
Link to Franketology Spreadsheet
TRUE SEED LIST
Auburn
Houston
Duke
Tennessee
Alabama
Florida
Michigan St.
Wisconsin
Kentucky
St. John’s
Iowa St.
Texas Tech
Purdue
Arizona
Texas A&M
Missouri
Maryland
Clemson
Michigan
Marquette
Ole Miss
Louisville
St. Mary’s (CA)
Illinois
Oregon
Miss. St.
Kansas
Gonzaga
BYU
UCLA
Memphis
Creighton
Baylor
UConn
Vandy
New Mexico
West Virginia
LAST FOUR BYES
Utah St.
SDSU
Nebraska
Oklahoma
LAST FOUR IN
Arkansas
Ohio St.
Georgia
Indiana
OTHER AUTO-BIDS
Drake
UC San Diego
VCU
McNeese
Arkansas St.
Yale
Liberty
High Point
Grand Canyon
High Lipscomb
Akron
UNCW
Samford
No. Colorado
So. Dakota St.
Milwaukee
Bryant
Norfolk St.
CCSU
Quinnipiac
SEMO
Southern
Bucknell
FIRST FOUR OUT
Georgia
TCU
Boise St.
Wake Forest
NEXT FOUR OUT
UNC
Arizona St.
Xavier
Northwestern
Franketology: February 25, 2025
I riled up VCU Twitter this afternoon with this tweet:
I stand by it.
Coming into today, BracketMatrix.com has VCU as the top 11-seed, squarely in at-large territory. Naturally, I have some thoughts. First, this might just be a quirky anomaly. All but 1 bracket has VCU you in. This is not necessarily because VCU is an at-large lock, but It may be that many bracketologists have them as an 11-seed auto bid, just behind the Last 4 In, also on the 11-seed line. If that’s true, just a few bracketologists pushing placing VCU on the 10 line (indeed in some cases the 9(!) seed line, could pull that average from the first auto-bid 11 (behind the last 4 in) to the first 11 seed, at-large territory before the last 4 in. I think that’s definitely a factor.
But as you may notice, there’s still several Bracket Matrix members that have VCU squarely in the at-large field, with 31 of 63 brackets that had VCU in the field had them on the 9 or 10 line. Two brave souls of that 63 (soon to be 3 when the Matrix updates to include my bracket), Bracket WAG and 5 Star Bets. Neither are particularly high in the Matrix, but Bracket WAG has been doing this for a long time, so it is reassuring to see he’s with me on this.
In order to see why I firmly believe that VCU is not an at-large team, we need to start with a look at the bubble. As with last week, below is a snippet of my bracketology workbook. This one includes 19 teams: last four byes, last four in, first four out, next four out, plus 3 auto-bids that would be on the bubble if they lose their conference tournaments: UCSD, Drake and of course, VCU. Wake Forest will likely fall way off the bubble given just how badly Duke murdered them. No shame in losing to Duke, but that was ugly. In any event, the following is still instructive:
Link to spreadsheet right here.
The problem here for VCU is an absolute dearth of quality wins. They have a bubbly resume metrics average of 44.67. The predictive metrics average and NET are both good, both at 29, but it are largely irrelevant for getting a bid. They have not beaten an at-large team, and will not have any opportunities to before Selection Sunday. They have a single Q1 win. If you do the math, you can see there’s 8 at-large bids for 19 teams in this spreadsheet. So let’s take these in resume order, and see if we can get VCU into the top 8…
Fir
Teams with Better Resume Metrics
There are 4 teams that have resume metrics averages under 40:
Utah State - 33.67
SDSU - 36.67
Drake - 37.00
Georgia - 37.33
But of course that is just one line on the resume. For purposes of determining the field (as opposed to seeding), predictive metrics really only used in case of a tiebreaker, so I will not be evaluating them.
Utah State - 3 wins v. at large field; 3-3 in Q1, 1-0 in Q1A, SOS 83; no losses in Qs 3&4 - this resume is clearly better than VCU; same .500 record in Q1, but 3-3 vs. 1-1, SOS 83 vs. 144, 3 wins vs. at-large field vs. none
SDSU - 3 wins v. at large field, 4-5 Q1; 1-2 Q1A; 1 Q3 loss; SOS 65 - clearly a better resume than VCU with the Q1A win, 4 Q1 wins and just 1 game under .500, and a much better SOS
Drake - 1 win v. at large field, 1-0 Q1; 4-0 Q2, 3 Q3 losses; SOS 203 - this is similar to VCU, but I probably give Drake the slight edge given they won their lone Q1 game, and sport a win over the field, but the SOS is troubling. I could see this one either way, so let’s give VCU the edge
Georgia - 4 wins v. at-large field; 4-11 Q1; 3-9 Q1A; 34.33 predictive metrics average, SOS 14, 0 losses outside Q1 - this resume is obviously better. 3 Q1A wins vs. 0, SOS 14 vs. 144, having predictives in the same ballpark as VCU, the 4 wins over the at-large field all clear VCU’s lone advantage: a .500 (1-1) record in Q1
So just in the first 4, we got at least 3 teams better than VCU already.
Teams with Similar Resume Metrics (40-50 average)
Indiana - 40.67 resume average; 2 wins v. at-large field; 4-11 Q1; 2-5 Q1A; SOS 34; 0 losses outside Q1 - better resume metric average, more quality wins, much tougher SOS, no doubt better resume than VCU
Wake Forest - let’s just say VCU has a better resume than Wake after that performance vs. Duke lol
Oklahoma - 46.67 resume average, 6 wins vs. at-large field; 5-10 Q1; 3-9 Q1A; 1 Q3 loss; SOS 15 - hard to debate this, that is a gaudy amount of wins vs. the field, 5 Q1 wins, 3 Q1A wins, SOS light years better
UNC - 47.00 resume average, 1 win v. at-large field; 1-10 Q1; 0-8 Q1A; 1 Q3 loss; SOS 44 - VCU’s resume clears
UCSD - 48.33 resume average, 1 win v. at-large field; 2-1 Q1; 1-0 Q1A; 1 Q3 loss, 1 Q4 loss; SOS 208 - another close call here, personally I give UCSD the edge with the win over the field and the Q1A win, but the SOS and Q4 win are definitely problematic. I could see it going either way, so let’s give VCU the benefit of the doubt here
Link to Franketology Spreadsheet
TRUE SEED LIST
Auburn
Duke
Houston
Alabama
Tennessee
Florida
Arizona
Kentucky
Texas A&M
Michigan St.
Wisconsin
St. John’s
Maryland
Missouri
Purdue
Texas Tech
Iowa St.
Michigan
Clemson
Saint Mary’s
Louisville
Miss. St.
Marquette
UCLA
Oregon
Ole Miss
Illinois
Creighton
Kansas
Memphis
Utah St.
BYU
Baylor
New Mexico
UConn
West Virginia
LAST FOUR BYES
Ohio St.
Nebraska
Gonzaga (as an auto bid, Gonzaga is not last 4 byes, but fell here in my seeding)
Texas
Vanderbilt
LAST FOUR IN
Oklahoma
SDSU
Arkansas
Indiana
OTHER AUTO-BIDS
UC San Diego
Drake
Arkansas St.
VCU
Liberty
McNeese St.
Yale
Grand Canyon
Lipscomb
High Point
Akron
Samford
South Dakota St.
UNCW
No. Colorado
Milwaukee
Norfolk St.
CCSU
Bryant
Quinnipiac
Southern U
SEMO
Bucknell
FIRST FOUR OUT
Georgia
TCU
Boise St.
Wake Forest
NEXT FOUR OUT
UNC
Arizona St.
Xavier
Northwestern
Franketology: February 17, 2025
Welp, the committee revealed their top-16 Saturday, here they are, with my Friday Franketology top-16 in parentheses, and Friday bracketology “all team sheet metrics average” after the parenthesis:
Auburn (Auburn) 1
Alabama (Duke) 2
Duke (Alabama) 3
Florida (Tennessee) 4
Tennessee (Florida) 6
Texas A&M (Houston) 8
Purdue (Purdue) 9
Houston (Iowa St.) 5
Iowa State (Illinois) 7
Kentucky (Texas A&M) 14
Wisconsin (Kentucky) 10
Arizona (Texas Tech) 15
Texas Tech (Arizona) 11
Michigan (Kansas) 13
Kansas (Maryland) 17
St. John’s. (Wisconsin) 16
Not too shabby. I for one am fairly impressed with myself. If I doo this well throughout my final bracket I’ll be happy. As far as what I learned about this year’s committee, by lining up these seeds with various metrics and averages: The committee seems to be largely tracking the All Team Sheet Metrics Average. It’s unclear what’s the defining characteristic of teams that got bumped up or down, as each of the teams that were moved up or down from their all resume metrics average brings something different to the table. So from that perspective I will keep doing what I’ve been doing with one small tweak: use the all metrics average as my baseline, instead of predictive metrics average, and adjust from there based on other factors (quad records, predictive metrics, etc.)
That’s all I got today. Without further ado, here’s your Franketology:
True Seed List
Auburn
Duke
Florida
Alabama
Tennessee
Texas A&M
Wisconsin
Houston
Iowa St.
Texas Tech
Purdue
Michigan
St. John’s
Kentucky
Arizona
Michigan St.
Missouri
Kansas
Maryland
Marquette
Ole Miss
Illinois
UCLA
Mississippi St.
Memphis
Baylor
Creighton
Clemson
Oregon
Ohio St.
New Mexico
UConn
Saint Mary’s (CA)
Louisville
Utah St.
Nebrasketball
Gonzaga
Last Four Byes
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Texas
Georgia
Last Four In
Arkansas
San Diego St.
Vanderbilt
BYU
Remaining Auto-Bids
Drake
VCU
UC San Diego
Arkansas St.
Liberty
McNeese St.
Yale
High Point
Grand Canyon
Akron
Samford
Lipscomb
South Dakota St.
UNCW
Northern Colo.
Milwaukee
CCSU
Norfolk St.
Bryant
Southern U.
Quinnipiac
Little Rock
Bucknell
First Four Out
Kansas St.
USC
Wake Forest
SMU
Next Four Out
UNC
Xavier
Indiana
Boise St.
NIT bracketology?! Fuck it, it’s a holiday, NIT Bracketology! WHAT’S THAT?! CROWN BRACKETOLOGY TOO?! YOLO!
NIT Bracketology
SMU
UNC
GMU
BSU
USC
KSU
San Fran
UCI
UNT
LSU
Bradley
Butler
South Carolina
Middle Tenn.
Chattanooga
Utah Valley
Wake Forest
Pittsburgh
Santa Clara
Dayton
Stanford
Minnesota
Washington
Oregon St.
Florida St.
Saint Joseph’s
St. Bonnies
Washington St.
UVa
Oklahoma St.
UNLV
College of Charleston
Crown Bracketology
Don’t have me committed. I heard that B1G, Big12 and Big East squads aren’t allowed to turn down a Crown bid for the NIT, so I figured NIT bracketology might not make sense if I applied that to my NIT bracketology, without also doing Crown Bracketology. So really I’m only: does “NIT bracketology once in awhile” crazy, not “set out this morning with designs on doing Crown Bracketology, please commit me now” crazy.
Cincy
Villanova
Xavier
Indiana
Northwestern
Arizona St.
Iowa
Nevada
Colorado St.
Utah
UCF
TCU
Penn St.
Rutgers
Providence
Georgetown
Franketology: February 14, 2025
Wow, Valentine’s day already. only 6 games left in the regular season for my beloved Johnnies and most of the Big East. Let’s talk about a couple college basketball things I love.
Most of all, I love the Big East. The greatest basketball conference man (and God) hath ever assembled. “Old Big East,” “New Big East,” doesn’t matter. It’s all elite. The rivalries. The Twitter community, the greatest conference tournament of them all on the floor of the World’s Most Famous Arena. The history. The coaches. Ohhhhhhh the coaches. The Big East was a league built on monster personalities: JT, Looooooie, Rollie, Boeheim, Calhoun, Pitino, Raftery, Carlesimo, and more recently with guys like Jay Wright, Kevin Willard, Ed Cooley, Shaka Smart, Sean Miller, Danny Hurley and Rick Pitino (again). These guys, be it the 80’s guys or the recent guys got “it”. Danny Hurley gets “it”, Rick gets “it.” Most of the coaches do. What is “it”? The understanding that being a part of a Big East basketball program is about more than just coaching basketball. It’s about a community of die hards and passionate fans that help to make this league what it is. It’s about putting on a show. It’s about entertainment. Play fun basketball. Give good quotes. Provide bulletin board material. Manufacture bulletin board material from innocuous nothingburgers. Whatever it takes to draw eyeballs top the conference.
I love the SJU fanbase specifically. I’ll die on the hill that we’re among the best fan bases in the sport. So many of us were here through thick and thin, so many more than were ever warranted the last 25 years. A fanbase that can take a player’s frown over missing 2 clutch FTs, and turn it into a smile and a laugh with a cheer. A fanbase that has its team’s back no matter what.
As for the bracket…I think it’s an interesting one. Looking at BracketMartix.com, no one seems to have Kansas State in their bracket yet. I for one think they stack up favorably against the bubble. They have 4 wins vs. the field, aare 3-5 in Q1A and 4-5 in Q1; 6-9 in Qs1&2. Among the expanded bubble (the 27 teams I had from Last 4 Byes through every team I considered for the final at-large spots) Kansas state has the 3rd highest win percentage (.444) behind only 2 teams in the “last 4 byes” category (SDSU-.571 & WVU-.455), and their 4 wins vs. the current Bracket Matrix at-large field is T2nd with WVU and Arkansas, trailing only Oklahoma’s 5 (because almost every SEC game is vs. an NCAAT team lol). Their resume metrics average, 55.5 is not great, and they have 2 Q3 losses dragging them down.
Compare that to my first team out, BYU, who has only 2 wins vs. the at-large field, and 3-5 in Q1, but 0-4 in Q1A. BYU’s resume metrics average is 52, so basically the same as Kansas St. BYU’s resume outpaces Kansas St. on the predictive metrics average, with BYU sporting a 30.67. However, for inclusion in the field quality wins are far more valuable than predictive metrics, which is why I gave the edge to Kansas St. Not to mention, aside from quantity, Kansas St. has the best wins among the 2, winning at Iowa St. and vs. Kansas & Arizona, versus BYU’s best wins being home v. Baylor and at WVU (K-State beat WVU in the Little Apple). In other words, Kansas State has the 3 best wins between these 2 teams.
The good news. This was merely an academic exercise. These two teams will meet tomorrow at 9pm ET in Provo. This game certainly feels like a bubble eliminator. This is especially true for Kansas State, as their resume lacks opportunities to make a real impact until the last game of the season when they host Iowa St. BYU on the other hand has it all in front of them and controls their own destiny to an extent. Win tomorrow, get 2 games from: v. Kansas, at Arizona, v. WVU and at Iowa St., and take care of business at ASU and vs. Utah, and they should find themselves on the right side of the bubble. A tall ask nonetheless, but it starts by bursting Kansas St.’s bubble tomorrow.
Without further ado, let’s get to the bracket:
Direct link to the spreadsheet.
True Seed List
Auburn
Duke
Alabama
Tennessee
Florida
Houston
Purdue
Iowa St.
Illinois
Texas A&M
Kentucky
Texas Tech
Arizona
Kansas
Maryland
Wisconsin
St. John's
Missouri
Michigan St.
Ole Miss
Marquette
Michigan
Saint Mary's (CA)
UCLA
UConn
Creighton
Gonzaga
Mississippi St.
Clemson
Louisville
Ohio St.
Memphis
Utah St.
Oregon
Baylor
Nebraska
New Mexico
Last Four Byes
San Diego St.
West Virginia
Georgia
Texas
Last Four In
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Vanderbilt
Kansas St.
UC San Diego
Drake
Arkansas St.
VCU
McNeese St.
Yale
Liberty
High Point
Grand Canyon
Samford
Lipscomb
Akron
UNCW
South Dakota St.
Northern Colo.
Central Conn. St.
Norfolk St.
Purdue Fort Wayne
Southern U.
Bryant
Quinnipiac
Little Rock
Bucknell
First Four Out
BYU
Indiana
Southern California
Arizona St.
Next Four Out
Xavier
UCF
Pittsburgh
Boise St.
Franketology: February 10, 2025
Good news: my illness is gone. Bad news: you’re gonna get some rambling before my bracket…
This week, let’s discuss the bubble. Man, it is WILD down there. Teams once thought relatively safe are falling onto the bubble, teams coming back from the dead—Arkansas?! …KANSAS STATE?!?!?!—and a whole bunch of resumes that look very similar. Let’s look at some blind profiles of the last 4 in and first 4 out:
Team 1 (Ark) - resume metrics avg 44.33; predictive metrics avg 49.67; 4 wins vs. at-large teams; 3-5 Q1A; 3-7 Q1; 4-9 Q1&2
Team 2 (BYU) - 55.67 / 32.33 / 1 / 0-4 / 2-5 / 5-8
Team 3 (UCI) - 46.33 / 84.33 / 0 / 0-0 / 1-1 / 4-2
Team 4 (UNC) - 48.33 / 40.33 / 1 / 1-7 / 1-9 / 6-9
Team 5 (SDSU) - 43.00 / 53.67 / 2 / 1-2 / 3-3 / 5-5
Team 6 (Vandy) - 38.00 / 47.67 / 3 / 1-3 / 2-5 / 6-6
Team7 (Wake) - 32.33 / 66.33 / 1 / 1-5 / 1-6 / 6-6
Team 8 (UCF) - 52.00 / 64.67 / 2 / 2-7 / 3-7 / 3-10
Not a ton of differentiation there. Picking the 4 best teams from that list is an entirely subjective exercise in what you value. Q1 Ws, well that’s obviously Team 8. Q1 win percentage? Teams 3 & 5 are your bag. Resume metrics? Teams 6 & 7 are your top choices. Predictive metrics? Well that’s teams 2 and 4. Q1&2 wins? Look at teams 4, 6, & 7. Wins against the field? Teams 1 & 6.
And this exercise underscores the insanity of bracketology. The term of a committee member lasts 5 years, and they rotate in and out in a fashion that there’s always some level of continuity. So we are trying to predict what a disparate group of 12 individuals, all of whom may value different things, are going to emphasize when they review these resumes. We can make our best guesses based on what past committees have done, but that’s never a great indicator. For my money, if I were a committee member, I’d emphasize quality wins. For me, it’s hard to separate that from what I think the committee will do, so my brackets tend to skew towards big wins. And so among these teams I took, in order, Team 1 (Arkansas), Team 6 (Vandy), and Team 5 (SDSU), leaving me one team short. After that, the best remaining resume metric was Team 7 at 32.33. And even though team 8 has more Q1 wins and wins against the field, Team 7 has a significantly better Q1&2 win%, as Team 8 is 0-3 in Q2. Therefore, I went with Team 7 (Wake Forest). The first four out are Team 2 (BYU), Team 8 (UCF), Team4 (UNC) and Team 3 (UCI). UCI is probably a pipe dream, as they will enter Selection Sunday with 0 wins against the at-large field, but the resume metrics (46.33) are close enough to say “maybe”.
So where does that leave us? Well…I dunno. Just that this process isn’t easy, and it isn’t rote. It is performed by human beings doing their best to balance a bunch of competing factors, and predicting how a group of humans will balance these factors year-to-year naturally involves some (educated) guessing. Keep that in mind as we enter the stretch run of this regular season.
With that out of the way, let’s get to the current Franketology bracket:
Auburn
Alabama
Duke
Tennessee
Florida
Purdue
Iowa St.
Houston
Arizona
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Wisconsin
Michigan St.
Kansas
Michigan
Kentucky
Marquette
Illinois
Maryland
St. John’s
Oregon
UCLA
Missouri
Ole Miss
Mississippi St.
Baylor
Creighton
Clemson
Saint Mary’s
Memphis
UConn
Louisville
Gonzaga
Ohio St.
Nebraska
West Virginia
New Mexico
LAST FOUR BYES
Utah St.
Texas
Oklahoma
Georgia
LAST FOUR IN
Arkansas
Vanderbilt
San Diego St.
Wake Forest
VCU
UC San Diego
Drake
Arkansas St.
McNeese St.
Yale
Grand Canyon
Liberty
Akron
Samford
High Point
Lipscomb
S. Dakota St.
UNCW
No. Colorado
Bryant
Norfolk St.
Purdue Fort Wayne
CCSU
Southern U
Quinnipiac
Little Rock
Bucknell
And fuck it, I’ve got nothing better to do, let’s get to NIT Bracketology!
NIT SEEDS
1 Seeds
BYU
UNC
SMU
Boise St.
2 Seeds
George Mason
USC
Xavier
San Francisco
3 Seeds
UC Irvine
North Texas
LSU
Bradley
4 Seeds
South Carolina
Jacksonville St.
Utah Valley
Chattanooga
5 Seeds
UCF
Pittsburgh
Indiana
Cincy
6 Seeds
Arizona St.
Kansas St.
Villanova
Northwestern
7 Seeds
Santa Clara
Iowa
Rutgers
TCU
8 Seeds
Dayton
Stanford
Colo. St.
Col. of Charleston
Franketology: February 7, 2025
Bad news: I’m sick. Good news, you don’t have to listen to me ramble for 10 paragraphs to get to the Franketology.
Constructive feedback is always welcome on Twitter. Don’t be a dick (a simple, but pretty solid rule for life). This is probably littered with seeding mistakes and what not.
With that out of the way, let’s get to the current Franketology bracket:
Auburn
Duke
Tennessee
Alabama
Houston
Purdue
Florida
Kansas
Arizona
Texas Tech
Iowa St.
Texas A&M
Maryland
Marquette
Wisconsin
Michigan St.
Illinois
Kentucky
Ole Miss
St. John’s
UCLA
Missouri
Oregon
Michigan
UConn
MIssissippi St.
Memphis
Creighton
Baylor
Saint Mary’s (CA)
Utah St.
Texas
Gonzaga
Louisville
Ohio St.
Clemson
Last 4 Byes
San Diego St.
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Nebraska
New Mexico
Last Four In/Dayton-Bound
Georgia
Vanderbilt
USC
BYU
Other Auto Bids
Drake
UC San Diego
VCU
Arkansas St.
McNeese St.
Grand Canyon
Liberty
Yale
Samford
Akron
High Point
UNCW
Lipscomb
So. Dakota St.
Northern Colorado
Purdue Fort Wayne
Norfolk St.
Bryant
Southern U.
CCSU
Quinnipiac
Little Rock
Bucknell
First Four Out
Arkansas
UCF
Wake Forest
Pittsburgh
Next Four Out
Arizona St.
Xavier
UNC
Indiana
Franketology: February 4, 2025
Last week I ranted and rambled about KPI and metrics, when I had set out to talk a little bit about my methodology, because I think transparency is important for metrics, but also bracketologists. I am just one man, with a full-time job, 1 podcast to co-host, and currently attempting to get a 2nd podcast off the ground. Also, bracketology is not easy. At the end of the day, the best Bracketologists might miss some things, even the ones who make a full-time living by allegedly being good at this stuff. For instance, here’s the BracketMatrix.com rankings (179 qualifying bracketologists) of the well-known pundits and major outlet bracketologists—aka the folks doing this for a living—is a lesson in “be careful who you trust”:
71. Mike DeCourcy - Fox Sports
77. Jeff Borzello - ESPN
82. Adam Zdroik - RotoWire
98. Brian Bennett - The Athletic
118. Joe Lunardi - ESPN - This is the big one. Joe is the godfather. No one would be here doing this without him (I mean sure, SOMEONE would’ve started predicting the bracket, but Joe did was the first prominent guy to do it). So it surprises many people to see how many students have exceeded the master, but it’s the truth. If you’re citing a single bracketologists (something that should be avoided, more on that below), it should NEVER be Lunardi these days, unless you’re attempting to point out the errors or bias in his brackets.
139. Kevin Sweeney - Sports Illustrated
140. Bill Bender - Sporting News
164. Jerry Palm - CBS Sports
For comparison’s sake, I am ranked 17/48 in the “Bracket Newbies” list, and finished 90/227 in my first season last year. I’m thoroughly green, and this just mediocre so far.
As noted, I rarely, if ever, cite a single bracketologist. The better option is to cite the consensus seed at BracketMatrix.com. I will cite individual bracketologists if a team is on the rise or the fall. Why? Bracket Matrix updates can sometimes be delayed, and just by the nature of the exercise, it can lag a few days in accounting for very recent games. This is due to the structure of the Matrix. There are currently 65 bracketologists. If Bracketologist X releases every Monday, and there are big results Tuesday and Wednesday, that, in the aggregate, causes the Matrix to lag a bit, as Bracketologist X won’t update his bracket until the next Monday, and until then his dated bracket is pulling the consensus seed in the wrong direction.
For instance, the current matrix includes 65 brackets, of which I am one. Not every Bracketologist gets included in the Matrix. There are certain requirements, one is to have a 5 year average greater than 0, which effectively means you outperformed the average bracket more often than not. So in my 1 year I was above-average, and my bracket now appears on the matrix. Unfortunately, my bracket has not been updated since 1/28, and the Matrix as a whole has not been updated since 2/1 (like many of us in this space, the guy runs the Matrix as a hobby, and it’s a huge undertaking I imagine)
So in other words, if you really feel the need to cite individual Bracketologists I trust:
YAGO Brackets - The current reigning # 1 in the standings, currently his 5th season of bracketology. Very consistent, but has not yet won it all.
1-3-1 Sports - 1-3-1 is even more consistent than YAGO, coming in at 2 in the standings, but having won in 2018. That 2018 championship is not even including in his ranking any more, and the man is still in 2nd place. That’s consistency and track record.
March Madness 25 - This bracketologist changes his site every season, which can be annoying, but god damn he knows brackets. As painful as it is to admit, he was one of the Bracketologists to nail SJU, having us in the First 4 Out with Hall, Indiana St. and Wake Forest, which was realistically where we belonged, fuck the committee.
RCerulo Bracketology - I’m not sure I trust R. Cerulo yet, he’s only 132nd in the standings, but he is the reigning champion from last season. Of course last season might be an anomaly. It certainly took the collective wisdom of Bracketologists by surprise, as it was the lowest average bracket score in the past 5 seasons: 338.6, vs. 356.5 in 2023, 347, 346.4, and 341.9.
Others who I think do a great job but may or may not necessarily have the highest rankings: 801 Bracketology, T3 Bracketology, Making the Madness (Jonathon Warriner), NYK Brackets, JBR Bracketology, TSB Bracketology and Heat Check (Lukas Harkins). Can find most of these folks on Twitter if you’re so inclined.
Back to the point, in other words, I might overlook things. I may have your team seeded lower than you like, or maybe there’s no consistency week to week, i.e. I ranked Team A as a 5 seed this week and a 6-seed next even though they won both their games. Or perhaps the inverse, a team lost both games but didn’t drop as much as expected. A lot of that boils down to my method.
I pull all the relevant data into a worksheet. That will include all records, quad records, SOS figures and metrics for every team.
Check the data, make sure everything imported properly. Address formatting issues. Add in columns for calculating averages and win percentages by quads.
Sort by conference, then by predictive metrics averages to determine conference winners. Some bracketologists use the standings, others use different individual metrics. I chose the predictive metrics average for several reasons: 1) we’re attempting to predict who will win the conference tournament, and so predictive metrics have the most value in that regard; 2) averaging the 3 resume metrics will give you the closest outcome; 3) this can also occasionally result in bid thievery happening organically within my bracketology, as in some middling conferences the team with the best predictive metrics averages isn’t always an at-large team. At the moment, this is not occurring, but it has occurred at points this year in the Big West, where one of UC San Diego and UC Irvine was an at-large, but the other had lower predictive metrics, making them conference champs in my bracketology and stealing a bid. In those cases, the higher predictive average team wasn’t an at-large caliber, but the 2nd place team was (since resume metrics are more important for inclusion, while predictive metrics are only used in seeding).
This also dovetails with the new NIT inclusion rules nicely, as I occasionally dabble in NIT Bracketology in this space. For those who do not know, here’s the current NIT bid rules:
16 “exempt” bids are given top the top 2 teams each in the ACC & SEC that did not make the NCAA Tournament, plus 1 team each from the other top-12 conferences, as judge by the average of all team sheet metrics. The 16 “exempt” bids are guaranteed to host a game
Any team that wins its conference regular season championship, but does not get a bid to the NCAA Tournament, is not in a top-14 league (top-12 + SEC & ACC), and has a Team Sheet Metrics average <=125 gets an automatic bid
The rest of the teams are chosen at-large. Given the emphasis on all team sheet metrics average for exempt & automatic bids, that will be my primary guiding factor in determining NIT at-large bids
Back to proper bracketology, I sort by resume metrics and eliminate every team with a resume metrics averages greater than 60
Next I filter out the auto-bids and lock in a bid for any team better than 30 in the resume metrics average. No team lower than 36 in resume metrics average has been left out in the NET era. While there was much hullabaloo last year with St. Johns at 32 and Indiana St. at 28 becoming the 2 best NET ranking teams to be left out of the NCAAT in the NET era, the same logic does not apply to the same statement as resume metrics, since the committee actually uses resume metrics. The NET was never the sacred cow some people—myself included—thought it was. I think, theoretically, the committee could leave out any NET team if they do not have a strong resume, which is judge mostly by the resume metrics (because the committee doesn’t watch enough ball). But generally if you have a high NET/predictive metrics, you’ll have a solid resume.
With an eye predominantly on the resume metrics, I fill out the remaining at-large bids. While resume metrics remain of paramount importance, the full resume is considered for these teams. I also have some hard-and-fast rules this late in the season:" No Q1 victory, no bid. No victory over an at-large team, no bid. Other factors considered beyond resume metrics include quad records, SOS, and predictive metrics. I’d say I mostly focus on wins over the at-large field (as determined by the Matrix) and Q1 wins and Q1 win %. Win % can be of particular importance. Pulling an example from below, Clemson has a 2-2 Q1 record, that’s not great at this juncture, but they’re still well within the field with a 29 resume metrics average. Normal, I would ding a team a seed line or 2 for only having a Q1 win. However, Clemson has a Q1 record of 2-2 (.500), which keeps them competitive as 28th in my True Seed list, a 7-seed, right behind teams with 4 Q1 Ws (Louisville and Miss. St.), but a worse with percentage (both at .444)
After spot-checking to ensure everything looks good, particularly around the bubble, we filter out all of the teams who didn’t get a bid, leaving the 68-team field.
Next we sort the field by predictive metrics average. This is our jumping off point for seeding. In addition, we use the same factors listed in 6 for determining the bubble teams, to adjust a team up or down from the seed line dictated by its predictive metrics average. For instance, Houston has the best predictive metrics average in the country (1.33). However, they are only 10.67 in resume metrics, and have a Q1 record of just 3-4, with just 4 wins versus the field. The 1-seeds in my bracket have 12-1, 5-2, 6-3, and 5-4 Q1 records, and each team has more Q1A wins than Houston has total wins. Therefore, Houston gets bumped (in this case to a 3 seed). Gonzaga is in a similar boat, with predictives average of 13 and a resume average of 46, and a Q1 record of just 2-6. That dropped them down to a 9-seed.
Once the field has been “true seeded", I review the list thoroughly one more time to make sure I haven’t missed anything simple, or made decisions that in hindsight don’t make sense. Once that’s done, I publish.
Now, I do not know other bracketologists methods. But I think the advantages to my method are a few:
Using the predictives average for auto-bids
I re-do this process EVERY TIME. I imagine some folks are just moving people up or down based on results, and I fear that can be too reactionary. I do a complete analysis every time.
I think the methodology is sound, leaning predominantly on the resume metrics up front for inclusion, but the predictives for seeding, but keeping it loose enough to account for the full resume.
The lone potential downside is that I may be prone to make mistakes where a team can swing a couple seed lines from one edition to the other for seemingly no reason. I actually think this is a benefit. Because it allows me to detect potential bad seedings by me every time I do a fresh bracket.
In any event, cut me some slack. Constructive feedback is always welcome on Twitter. Don’t be a dick (a simple, but pretty solid rule for life).
With that out of the way, let’s get to the current Franketology bracket:
Direct link to spreadsheet here.
True Seed List
Auburn
Duke
Alabama
Tennessee
Purdue
Texas A&M
Kansas
Florida
Arizona
Iowa St.
Michigan St.
Houston
Texas Tech
Marquette
Illinois
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Ole Miss
Missouri
St. Mary’s (CA)
UCLA
Michigan
St. John’s
Maryland
Memphis
Louisville
Mississippi St.
Clemson
Creighton
UConn
Baylor
Oregon
Gonzaga
Oklahoma
Utah St.
West Virginia
Last 4 Byes
Texas
New Mexico (AUTO BID, NOT LAST 4 BYES)
Ohio St.
Vanderbilt
Georgiw
Last Four In
Nebrasketball
SDSU
BYU
UCF
Other Auto-Bids
Drake
UC San Diego
Arkansas St.
VCU
McNeese St.
Yale
GCU
Liebrty
High Point
Akron
Samford
UNCW
Lipscomb
South Dakota St.
Milwaukee
Northern Colorado
Norfolk St.
Southern U.
CCSU
Quinnipiac
Bryant
Little Rock
American
FIRST FOUR OUT
Arizona St.
Wake Forest
UC-Irvine
Pittsburgh
NEXT FOUR OUT
Arkansas
USC
Indiana
North Carolina
Franketology: January 29, 2025
There are many bracketologists out there far more knowledgeable and experienced than I am. I started last season. But I’m a quick study, and my ADHD hyperfocus and love of spreadsheets and data has made me a fairly quick study. On the same token, I do not come with years of ingrained practice and I am entirely self-taught. Last year I literally said “I want to do bracketology,” and then figured out how to best go about it on my own. I do not think I have done anything unique or original. I pull all the data (metrics, records, SOS, etc.) into a spread sheet, and start eliminating teams from there. Easy.
My take on evaluating teams is also informed by last season. Infamously, the Big East only got 3 bids last year, to the chagrin of many. St. John’s fans like myself, as well as Providence and Seton Hall fans were universal in our anger at the committee. Many fans of all 3 fan bases pointed out how stupid the metrics were. The gripes certainly seemed legitimate…
St. John’s was 32nd in NET, and 4-10 (.286) in Q1 games, but watched the team ranked 54th in NET, with a 2-7 (.222) Q1 record—Virginia—get the bid. Seton Hall and Providence had 5-8 (.385)and 6-9 (.400) Q1 records, respectively, but also had to watch UVa get in over them. Providence also had 0 losses in Qs 3&4. PC’s 6 wins tied them for 14th among all D1 teams. Seton Hall’s 5 tied them for 24th.
Every. Other. Team. That had 5 or more Q1 wins made the NCAAT except for Seton Hall and ProvidencePlenty of teams got in with 4 or less, and some teams even got in with only 3 Q1 wins! That latter category included Auburn, 3-7 (.300), ranked 5th in NET, and got a 4-seed. Gonzaga, 3-6 (.333), ranked 17 in NET, got a 6-seed. Dayton, 3-4 (.429), ranked 23rd in NET, got a 7-seed. Michigan St., 3-9 (.250) was 24th in NET and got a 9-seed. FAU, 2-2 (.500), ranked 39th in NET, and got a 10-seed.
If you’re an astute observer, you’ll notice that not only did Hall and Providence have more Q1 wins than all the listed teams, but they also had higher winning percentages than: Michigan St., UVa, Auburn and Gonzaga.
So what went wrong? Seton Hall and Providence both had weak NET rankings: 67 & 58, respectively. But NET isn’t supposed to matter. It certainly didn’t for Virginia, who was significantly worse in Q1 than PC or Hall, and made it with a mere 54 NET. Northwestern, 53rd in NET with only 4 Q1 wins (4-7, .364) had fewer wins and a lower win % in Q1 than either Hall or PC, but got a 9-seed.
Hall, PC, and SJU all had fairly weak Q1&2 combined records: SJU 10-12 (.455), Hall 9-11 (.450), and PC 9-13 (.409). Once again, that couldn’t be the factor. Texas was 8-11 (.421) in Q1&2, with 5 Q1 Ws and still got a 7-seed, Miss St. 8-12 (.400), with 4 Q1 wins got an 8-seed, and TCU, also 8-12 (.400) with 5 Q1 wins got a 9 seed.
Indeed, if you line Hall’s resume up against Texas—a 7-seed—and remove the metrics, they’re virtually indistinguishable:
20-12/20-12
Q1: 5-8/5-9
Q2: 4-3/3-2
Q1&2: 9-11/8-11
Q3: 2-1/5-1
Q4: 9-0/7-0
Left those team name-less to prove a point. The first is Seton Hall if you hadn’t figured it out. Thanks to metrics, those incredibly similar resumes are rated 27 spots apart: Seton Hall as 2nd team out was 47th in “true seed,” while Texas, a 7-seed, is 27th. So let’s look at the metrics, aside from NET, since we know NET is a sorting tool, not a ranking tool:
SOS: 33/17
OOCSOS: 67/36
At least we see some separation here, and in a less opaque metric. The slight SOS disparity is supported by their quad records, with Hall having only 1 more Q1&2 game, but 2 more Q4 games. However, the disparity is might be even smaller than it appears, as Texas’ average opponent was 103 NET to 112 for Hall’s average opponent. While there’s a disparity here, I do not think it’s one that could account for a 20-true seed difference.
Let’s move on to the resume metrics:
SOR: 41/31
KPI: 66/47
Avg: 53.5/39
If you’ve followed me in the past, you’ll know I have major problems with KPI. It’s a deeply flawed metric. For these pages, let’s suffice to ask the rhetorical questions why did the NCAA rely so heavily on a metric that varies so greatly from what the NCAA has identified as a quality win? Why is the NCAA leaning on a metric, as it did last year, that can take 2 resumes the NCAA views very similarly—NCAA created the NET to rank and sort wins and losses into the now-familiar quads, presumably they would view similar quad records as equivalent—and ranks them 20 true seed lines apart? KPI was the most determinative individual metric last year, and it’s crystallized here with this Texas comparison. It was also an outlier. Hall’s SOR, the other resume metric on team sheets last year, was a 41, versus a 66 in KPI. Bart Torvik’s highly respected WAB
Predictive metrics aren’t really meant to be used for determining bids, but it’s clear the committee will boost a team with poor resume metrics if it has elite predictive metrics. Texas had a 25 predictive metrics average versus a 65.50 for Hall. We know KPI is the likely outlier because the only other available resume metric—as far as this blogger knows—is Torvik’s WAB. While it wasn’t on the team sheet last year (the NCAA’s own version appears on team sheets this year), WAB had Seton Hall ranked 43. That brings the resume average down to a 50, but obviously if you remove the flawed KPI, you have a resume average of 42. Similarly, Providence had a WAB of 45 per Torvik, versus a KPI of 69 (not nice lol) and SOR of 44. Once again, WAB proving that KPI is an outlier here.
A resume average of 42 would put them squarely in line with teams like TCU (44) and Michigan St. (47), both of whom it had a better Q1 record than, and it has a better Q2 record than Michigan St. So in sum, what really did the Hall in was KPI. I’m not saying that’s right, it’s just the facts. In my campaign against KPI I learned a lot about the metric, but also the shadowy, opaqueness behind it.
For starters, KPI stand for Kevin Pauga Index. Kevin Pauga created the KPI essentially to replace and improve upon the RPI as a results-based metric. Of course you don’t know who Kevin Pauga is, but he’s an assistant AD for a division 1 school…but not just any school…he’s an assistant AD for:
Michigan St!
Do you believe that shit?! The guy controlling the metric that pushed Michigan St. to a 9-seed over otherwise more-deserving Big East squads is controlled by the Michigan St. assistant AD.
Not only that, but he is tied in deep with the NCAA, and his metric is used for countless other sports and divisions. Don’t believe me? Go check out FaktorSports.com and look at the drop down lists for divisions and sports. I actually had a fellow CBB/FCS fan tag me in a post in the fall about how FCS was going to be relying on KPI for selections to its post-season tournament. An absolute travesty.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE! Not only does Kevin Pauga control this incredibly important metric, he then goes out—as an incredibly lucrative side-hustle from his AD responsibilities—and sells those same schools that he controls the rankings for his services as a “scheduling consultant.”
So just think of this racket:
create a black box metric with only the vaguest possible public descriptions
get in good with the NCAA so that said metric is used across many sports
get 5-figure schedule consulting services contracts from various schools, presumably to assist in gaming the metric you created (and it is VERY game-able)
PROFIT!!
Good work if you can get it! So why do I bring this up? Do I think Kevin Pauga is sitting around tweaking the KPI rankings on the back-end? There were certainly plenty of anomalies that I profiled extensively in my Tweets last March. But no, I do not think he’s doing that, but I can’t rule it out in the absence of transparency. Do I think he’s selling consulting services to teach schools how to game his own metric? Yes, yes I do. But this could easily be rebutted out with a bit of transparency.
That is the key here: metrics transparency. While I understand the importance of a secret, proprietary formula to these metrics guys, we need some type of transparency around these metrics. For all I know, the NCAA is already engaging in the type of audits, checks, and balances that would give folks confidence in the team sheet metrics. If they do that, they need to be more open and transparent about it to give the rest of us the comfort they have with these metrics.
Of course this is the NCAA, so there’s an incredibly good chance they don’t have any checks and balances, let alone audits. We simply don’t know. At the end of the day, the only way to restore fan faith in the selection process is greater transparency.
The other reason I raised this is that last year was an excellent year to start bracketology. It threw into stark focus, in my first year as a bracketologist, the importance of resume metrics, and the basic axiom that resume metrics help determine who gets bids, while predictive metrics help determine seeding. While I believe most serious bracketologists know this (in case you can’t tell I am NOT a serious bracketologist), it is a fact that’s lost on the general public. Inevitably some team with solid KenPom/Torvik/NET figures will be left out this year (looking at you BYU), and inevitably those fans will whine about how metrics are irrelevant. Or fans will wonder how did THAT team get in because their NET/KenPom/Torvik figures are too high. They’ll be in good company, as hall of famer Rick Pitino tweeted similar sentiments earlier this year about NET and KenPom.
When you see those complaints, now you know better. You know to focus on the resume metrics to see why that team made or missed the NCAAT.
tl;dr - resume metrics are more important than NET or KenPom for inclusion in the tournament
With that out of the way, let’s get to the current Franketology bracket:
Direct link to spreadsheet here.
True Seed List
Auburn
Duke
Iowa St.
Alabama
Houston
Tennessee
Purdue
Kentucky
Florida
Marquette
Kansas
Texas A&M
Arizona
Illinois
Oregon
Michigan St.
Wisconsin
Mississippi St.
Ole Miss
Texas Tech
Michigan
Maryland
Gonzaga
St. John’s
Louisville
UCLA
Missouri
Utah St.
Memphis
West Virginia
Baylor
Creighton
UConn
Clemson
Texas
Ohio St.
Georgia
Last 4 Byes
Pittsburgh
Oklahoma
Vanderbilt
Arizona St.
Last Four In
New Mexico
UCF
SDSU
Wake Forest
Other Auto-Bids
UC San Diego
Arkansas St.
VCU
McNeese St.
Bradley
Liberty
GCU
NDSU
Samford
Yale
Lipscomb
High Point
Akron
UNCW
Northern Colorado
Milwaukee
Norfolk St.
Bryant
Merrimack
Southern U.
Quinnipiac
Little Rock
Colgate
FIRST FOUR OUT
Drake
Indiana
UNC
Nebraska
NEXT FOUR OUT
St. Mary’s (CA)
Northwestern
Xavier
BYU
Franketology: January 21, 2025
There comes a time in every man’s life when he needs to make a stand. I have reached that point. What is my stand you may ask? No more teams with 0 Q1 wins will be in my bracket. It’s almost half-way through conference seasons, if you don’t have a Q1 win yet, you’re not yet worthy of a bid. Period. Full stop.
Looking at you Maryland, currently a 9 in Bracket Matrix. Looking at you SMU and Iowa (both in my “Next Four Out”) and Cincy (12th team out) and North Texas (13th team out), Florida St. (14th team out) and Bradley (15th team out) an San Fran. And I take no position on whether these teams will do it. For instance, Torvik currently projects Maryland to finish with 4 Q1 wins, which would almost certainly put them in the field.
As for the Big East, we’re still on 4-teams:
2 Marquette
6 St. John’s
7 UConn
9 Creighton
The bracket is once again not kind to mid-majors, just 3 mid-major leagues getting multiple bids: Big West, MWC & WCC, as St. Mary’s has re-entered the field. However, UC Irvine has done enough to sneak in right now, and they needed it because I do my auto-bids based on the highest predictive metrics average among teams in the conference, and for the Big West, that turned out to be UCSD. So my method naturally created a bid thief in UC San Diego.
Something I am passionate about as well is my method. As I’ve said, based on what I saw from the committee last year, Resume Metrics and Quad Wins are my biggest determining factor in making selections. Predictive metrics and SOS of course also come into play.
From there, once I have my field of 68, I start at the bottom and rank the auto-qualifiers, then I come back to the top using predominantly the predictive metrics average, but also referencing back to the results metrics and the quad victories and SOS. The result is that I might here things to the effect of “Oregon is only 22 in NET & 25 in KenPom, why are they a 2-seed?! Well they have the 2nd most Q1 wins in the country behind Auburn, which overcomes their 28.33 predictive metrics average.
On the flip side “how is Memphis a 7, they have so many good wins?” Well their predictive metrics average is 41.33, which would indicate an 11 seed, so they’ve actually been adjusted up 4 seed lines from their “default” using the predictives averages of selected teams. Their quantity of Q1 wins, and their percentage (a 5-2 record in Q1, good for .714 win%) differentiates them from Pitt, who has a predictive metrics average of 38, very similar to Memphis’ 41, but Pitt is only seeded last four in, heading to Dayton while Memphis is a 7-seed. The difference is the Memphis quantity (5 v. 2) and quality (12.67 resume metrics average vs. 42) of Q1 wins.
With that out of the way, here’s the rest of it:
Direct link to the spreadsheet above
TEXT-ONLY
NCAA TOURNAMENT
SEED LIST
Breakdown By League
SEC - 13
B1G - 8
Big12 - 8
ACC - 5
Big East - 4
MWC - 3
Big West - 2
WCC - 2
Last Four Byes
UCF
Texas
Vanderbilt
Indiana
Last Four In
Pitt
UNC
UC Irvine
New Mexico
First Four Out
Wake Forest
Maryland
Nebrasketball
Washington St.
Second Four Out
Arizona St.
SMU
Iowa
Ohio St.
1 Seeds
Auburn
Duke
Iowa St.
Alabama
2 Seeds
Tennessee
Marquette
Oregon
Florida
3 Seeds
Houston
Kansas
Kentucky
Ole Miss
4 Seeds
Illinois
Purdue
Arizona
Michigan St.
5 Seeds
Mississippi St.
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Michigan
6 Seeds
Gonzaga
Wisconsin
St. John’s
Baylor
7 Seeds
UConn
West Virginia
Memphis
Missouri
8 Seeds
Clemson
Georgia
Louisville
San Diego St.
9 Seeds
Oklahoma
Utah St.
UCLA
Creighton
10 Seeds
St. Mary’s
UCF
Texas
Vanderbilt
11 Seeds
Indiana
Pittsburgh (Play-In)
UNC (Play-In)
UC Irvine (Play-In)
New Mexico (Play-In)
Drake*
12 Seeds
VCU
McNeese
UC San Diego
Liberty
13 Seeds
Yale
Arkansas St.
Lipscomb
Grand Canyon
14 Seeds
High Point
Samford
North Dakota St.
Northern Colorado
15 Seeds
Akron
UNCW
Purdue Fort Wayne
Norfolk St.
16 Seeds
Bryant
Southern
Quinnipiac (Play-In)
Merrimack (Play-In)
Little Rock (Play-In)
Colgate (Play-In)
NIT Bracketology
Fuck it, why the hell not, go Sicko mode and do NIT bracketology. This year the NIT is awarding “exempt” bids to the top team in each of the top-12 conferences (as ranked by KenPom) that did not receive a bid to the Big Dance. Because of ESPN tie-ins the ACC and SEC get an extra bid each. The best team in each conference will be determined by the average of all Team Sheet metrics (NET, KPI, SOR, WAB, BPI, KenPom & Torvik). Exempt bids are guaranteed to host a first round game (i.e. guaranteed a top-4 seed). Exempt bids noted with an carrot. There are also auto bids for regular season champions of leagues who did not win their conference tournament, provided that program ranks in the top 125 of the average of all Team Sheet metrics. Auto-bids noted with an asterisk. Without further ado:
Breakdown by Conference
B1G - 7
Big12 - 5
ACC - 4
Big East - 3
WCC - 3
A10 - 2
SEC - 2
AAC - 1
CAA - 1
CUSA - 1
Big West - 1
MVC - 1
MWC - 1
First Four Out of NIT
Oregon St.
St. Bonaventure
Rutgers
Colorado St.
Next Four Out of NIT
UNLV
Nevada
South Carolina
Washington
NIT 1 Seeds
Maryland^
SMU^
Nebrasketball
Cincy^
NIT 2 Seeds
Ohio St.
Xavier^
Wake Forest^
Arkansas^
NIT 3 Seeds
North Texas^
Boise St.^
Bradley^
LSU^
NIT 4 Seeds
San Francisco^
Dayton^
Middle Tenn^
CSU-Northridge^
NIT 5 Seeds
Iowa
Arizona St.
Washington St.
College of Charleston*
NIT 6 Seeds
Northwestern
BYU
Penn St.
Florida St.
NIT 7 Seeds
USC
TCU
Utah
Santa Clara
NIT 8 Seeds
Villanova
Georgetown
Stanford
George Mason
Additionally, as a disclaimer, I wouldn’t take the NIT seeding to be a measure of how far your team is away from the tournament. I just went straight down the list of “All Metrics Average” to seed my NIT bracket. One of my First Four Out, Washington St., is a 5-seed because San Francisco qualified for the exempt-bid out of the WCC. That said, I think this NIT bracket mostly reflects the next 32-best teams after my bracket above, so I am comfortable saying that any team that does not appear on this page in some capacity (NIT or NCAAT), is highly, highly unlikely to get a bid at this point.
Franketology: January 19, 2025
Working on some more automation to try and publish these more timely, and with less effort on my part. In any event, here’s today’s bracketology, covering games played up to and including January 18:
Direct link to the spreadsheet above
TEXT-ONLY SEED LIST
1 Seeds
Auburn
Duke
Alabama
Tennessee
2 Seeds
Iowa St.
Florida
Illinois
Oregon
3 Seeds
Kansas
Marquette
Purdue
Michigan
4 Seeds
Arizona
Kentucky
Michigan St.
Houston
5 Seeds
Gonzaga
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Mississippi St.
6 Seeds
Ole Miss
Baylor
St. John’s
UConn
7 Seeds
Maryland
Memphis
Wisconsin
Missouri
8 Seeds
Clemson
UCLA
West Virginia
Louisville
9 Seeds
Georgia
Creighton
Pittsburgh
San Diego St.
10 Seeds
VCU
Utah St.
Nebraska
Vanderbilt
11 Seeds
Oklahoma
North Carolina
New Mexico (Play-In)
Indiana (Play-In)
UCF (Play-In)
UC Irvine (Play-In)
12 Seeds
McNeese
UC San Diego
Drake
Liberty
13 Seeds
Yale
Grand Canyon
Lipscomb
Arkansas St.
14 Seeds
High Point
Samford
North Dakota St.
Akron
15 Seeds
Col. of Charleston
Bryant
Purdue Fort Wayne
Northern Colo.
16 Seeds
Quinnipiac
Norfolk St.
Merrimack (Play-In)
Southern U. (Play-In)
Colgate (Play-In)
Little Rock (Play-In)
January 7, 2025
First bracketology of the season. If you got problems with it, I really don’t care, but feel free to leave your thoughts on Twitter (n/k/a X), links above. If you have trouble viewing the spreadsheet, a mobile-friendly seed list is below.
Direct link to the spreadsheet above
TEXT-ONLY SEED LIST
1 Seeds
Auburn
Tennessee
Alabama
Iowa St.
2 Seeds
Duke
Memphis
Marquette
Oregon
3 Seeds
Illinois
Texas A&M
Kentucky
Utah St.
4 Seeds
Miss. St.
UConn
UCLA
Purdue
5 Seeds
Gonzaga
Maryland
Michigan St.
Baylor
6 Seeds
Wisconsin
Pitt
Florida
WVU
7 Seeds
Kansas
Houston
Michigan
SDSU
8 Seeds
Dayton
Clemson
Ole Miss
Oklahoma
9 Seeds
Arizona
Ohio St.
Nebraska
UNC
10 Seeds
St. John’s
Georgia
Penn St.
Arkansas
11 Seeds
St. Mary’s
Texas Tech
Texas (Play-In)
UCF (Play-In)
Vanderbilt (Play-In)
Arizona St. (Play-In)
12 Seeds
Drake
UC Irvine
High Point
Arkansas St.
13 Seeds
Samford
Liberty
Charleston
GCU
14 Seeds
McNeese
Lipscomb
UMass-Lowell
South Dakota St.
15 Seeds
Kent St.
Northern Colorado
Yale
Norfolk St.
16 Seeds
Central Connecticut St.
Purdue Fort Wayne
Merrimack (Play-In)
Southern (Play-In)
Little Rock (Play-In)
Bucknell (Play-In)
First Four Out
Louisville
St. Bonaventure’s
Indiana
SMU
Next Four Out
Washington St.
New Mexico
Wake Forest
Missouri