Final Field of 68 Projection: Notre Dame, Rutgers, SMU, Wyoming & Xavier Among Toughest Calls

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,729
Reaction score
4,908
Points
113
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN – Without further ado, here is my final “Field of 68” projection for the 2021-22 college basketball season. I thought the bubble was a little stronger this year so instead of having the 36 at-larges narrowed down to just 2 or 3 available bids by Saturday, this year I was still sorting out 5 or 6 right up to Selection Sunday.

CHANGE OF HEART, MAKING ONE CHANGE
I rescrubbed my final 8 teams (last 4 in & first 4 out) a few minutes ago, and I'm making one change to the field. Wyoming is now in the field, replacing SMU. I see that the Cowboys are a combined 11-6 vs. Quads 1 & 2, and I just don't see how those numbers wouldn't be deemed worthy of an at-large bid. Sorry for the late change.

NET rankings are noted in parentheses. For my thoughts on the “last 4 in” and “first 4 out”, please see below the Field of 68 projection. An *denotes a multiple-bid conference automatic qualifier. Thank you for tagging along this season!

FINAL FIELD OF 68 PROJECTION
America East (1): Vermont (52)

American (2): *Houston (3), Memphis (33)

ACC (4): Duke (12), *Virginia Tech (27), North Carolina (31), Miami (62)

ASUN (1): Jacksonville State (143)

Atlantic 10 (2): Davidson (41), *Richmond (81)

Big East (7): *Villanova (8), UConn (17), Providence (32), Seton Hall (37), Xavier (40), Marquette (42), Creighton (55)

Big Sky (1): Montana State (120)

Big South (1): Longwood (125)

Big Ten (8): Purdue (13), *Iowa (14), Illinois (15), Wisconsin (24), Ohio State (26), Michigan (34), Michigan State (36), Indiana (38)

Big XII (6): Baylor (4), *Kansas (6), Texas Tech (9), Texas (16), TCU (44), Iowa State (49)

Big West (1): Cal State Fullerton (153)

Colonial (1): Delaware (137)

Conference USA (1): UAB (46)

Horizon (1): Wright (191)

Ivy (1): Yale (142)

MAAC (1): Saint Peter’s (124)

MAC (1): Akron (127)

MEAC (1): Norfolk (156)

Missouri Valley (1): Loyola (23)

Mountain West (4): San Diego State (25), Colorado State (28), *Boise (29), Wyoming (50)

NEC (1): Bryant (200)

OVC (1): Murray (21)

Pac 12 (3): *Arizona (2), UCLA (10), USC (35)

Patriot (1): Colgate (128)

SEC (7): Kentucky (5), *Tennessee (7), Auburn (11), LSU (18), Arkansas (20), Alabama (30), Texas A&M (43)

SoCon (1): Chattanooga (63)

Southland (1): Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (241)

SWAC (1): Texas Southern (197)

Summit (1): South Dakota State (65)

Sun Belt (1): Georgia State (159)

WCC (3): *Gonzaga (1), Saint Mary’s (19), San Francisco (22)

WAC (1): New Mexico State (79)
__________________________________
Last 4 In: Michigan (34), Xavier (40), Texas A&M (43), (last team in) Wyoming (50)

First 4 Out: (first team out) SMU (45), Oklahoma (39), Rutgers (77), North Texas (47)

Others Considered (6): Wake Forest (48), BYU (54), VCU (56), Dayton (58), Florida (59), Virginia (83)

First 4 Dayton Automatic Qualifiers: Wright (191), Texas Southern (197), Bryant (200), Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (241)

Non-Power 6 At-Large Bids (6): Saint Mary’s (19), San Francisco (22), San Diego State (25), Colorado State (28), Memphis (33), Wyoming (50)

A FEW LAST 4 IN/FIRST 4 OUT MUSINGS
#40 XAVIER (IN) – X (18-13) will be an interesting case for the Selection Committee because the Musketeers finished the season in a freefall going just 2-8 in their last 10 games. But their resume still is among the strongest among bubble teams (sweep of Creighton + wins over UConn, Ohio State, vs. Virginia Tech, Marquette). If it’s truly the whole season that matters, X should be in somewhat comfortably. If the committee didn’t like the way they finished, they’ll leave them out. Record vs. my projected field: 7-9.

#43 TEXAS A&M (IN) – The Aggies (22-11 heading into SEC title game) weren’t even on my bubble board until they picked up a March 2 win @ Alabama. The 12th Man followed that up with wins in its first two SEC Tournament games (Florida, Auburn). Then they beat Arkansas in the semifinals. Throw in a neutral site non-conference win over Notre Dame in late November, and that was enough to solidify the Aggies in the field regardless of the outcome of their Sunday title game vs. Tennessee. Record vs. my projected field: 6-8

#50 WYOMING (LAST TEAM IN) – The Cowboys (24-8) were the team I had the most difficulty leaving out of the field, so much so that I changed gears this morning and put them back in in place of SMU. I've watched the Cowboys play a lot, and they’re the classic “eye test” team. And that 11-6 record vs. Quads 1 & 2 looks pretty good, too. There are a couple upper shelf home wins, one over Mountain West regular season & tournament champ Boise and another over Colorado State. My main concern would be there are no road or neutral site wins coming from their non-conference schedule. Record vs. my projected field: 3-5

#44 SMU (FIRST TEAM OUT) – The Mustangs (23-8) got a late boot from me this morning after revisiting my last 4 in and first 4 out. I had the Mustangs in on the strength of a regular season sweep of Memphis as well as a win over AAC regular season champion Houston, but looking at it a second time I just don't think that's going to be enough. The resume is pretty blah, and reeks of Dayton and the First Four, at best. A #285 non-conference SOS could bite the Mustangs, too. Record vs. my projected field: 3-2

#40 OKLAHOMA (OUT) – If it simply were about overall SOS the Sooners (18-15) would be in the Field of 68. Through Friday the Sooners had the #4 overall SOS ranking that includes wins over top-tier Big XII teams Baylor (in the Big XII Tournament quarterfinals) and a home win over Texas Tech. There’s also a quality neutral site win over Arkansas. But this resume, which includes a 7-11 regular season conference record, just feels a little bit short, with too many losses. Record vs. my projected field: 4-12

#77 RUTGERS (OUT) – Far and away and without question, this will be the most interesting and scrutinized decision the Selection Committee will have to make about an at-large team. So let’s talk about that. The Scarlet Knights (18-13) have quality wins in spades, which includes wins over every Big Ten opponent that is expected to make the NCAA Tournament. So, what is it holding me back from putting RU in the field? There are a few things I just can’t overlook. The Scarlet Knights’ non-conference SOS is in the 300s (and the worst among bubble teams), and historically if you’re a bubble team with that kind of number the committee doesn’t look kindly on that and often shows you the door to the NIT. Secondly, a pair of butt-ugly non-conference losses to Lafayette and UMass left a mark, later followed by a loss I witnessed in person to Big Ten bottom-feeder Minnesota, which came with the depth-deprived Gophers (6/7-man rotation) short 3 starters. That’s the kind of loss the committee is likely to notice. And third, RU’s current NET ranking is #78. The worst ranking to garner an at-large bid since the NCAA introduced their NET rankings in the 2018-19 season is #73. So, the question is, what will the committee value more, that ugly non-conference schedule and the losses that came with it, or the 8 wins (best among bubble teams) the Scarlet Knights earned over teams projected into the field? We’ll find out on Selection Sunday. Record vs. my projected field: 8-6

#47 NORTH TEXAS (OUT) – The Mean Green (22-6) were a late addition to the bubble. The regular season champions of Conference USA have a solid NET ranking of #46, but there’s just not anything on their resume that screams “at-large”. A road win over Conference USA Tournament champion UAB is solid, but that’s the Mean Green’s only win over a team projected into the field. Record vs. my projected field: 1-3

MY AT-LARGE SELECTION HISTORY
I have projected at-large teams for the NCAA Tournament since the 1991-92 season at a 94.4% clip. I’ve included a breakdown below. I’ve also tracked how I’ve done vs. ESPN’s Joe Lunardi and CBS’ Jerry Palm since the tournament field expanded to 68 teams in the 2010-11 season.

The most I’ve ever missed is 4, the last time in 2016. I’ve been perfect on 4 occasions: 2001, 2009, 2014, and 2017.

Projecting the At-Large Teams (1991-92 through 2020-21)
1991-92: 33/34
1992-93: 31/34
1993-94: 30/34
1994-95: 30/34
1995-96: 33/34
1996-97: 31/34
1997-98: 30/34
1998-99: 31/34
1999-00: 32/34
2000-01: 34/34 (perfect)
2001-02: 33/34
2002-03: 33/34
2003-04: 31/34
2004-05: 32/34
2005-06: 31/34
2006-07: 32/34
2007-08: 33/34
2008-09: 34/34 (perfect)
2009-10: 33/34
2010-11: 35/37
2011-12: 36/37
2012-13: 36/37
2013-14: 36/36 (perfect)
2014-15: 33/36
2015-16: 32/36
2016-17: 36/36 (perfect)
2017-18: 33/36
2018-19: 34/36
2019-20: Coronavirus-2020 (no tournament)
2020-21: 36/37
2021-22: 34/36
TOTALS: 988/1046 (94.5%)
Since Field Expanded to 68: 381/400 (95.3%)

Jerry Palm Since Field Expanded to 68
2010-11: 35/37
2011-12: 35/37
2012-13: 36/37
2013-14: 35/36
2014-15: 35/36
2015-16: 34/36
2016-17: 36/36 (perfect)
2017-18: 35/36
2018-19: 35/36
2019-20:
2020-21: 35/37
2021-22: 35/36
TOTALS: 386/400 (96.7%)

Joe Lunardi Since Field Expanded to 68
2010-11: 34/37
2011-12: 36/37
2012-13: 37/37 (perfect)
2013-14: 35/36
2014-15: 34/36
2015-16: 33/36
2016-17: 35/36
2017-18: 34/36
2018-19: 35/36
2019-20:
2020-21: 36/37
2021-22: 35/36
TOTALS: 384/400 (96%)

Worst At-Large NET Rankings Since 2019 Switch To NET
#77 Rutgers (2022) -- TBD
#73 Saint John’s (2019) – lost in First Four
#72 Wichita (2021) – lost in First Four
#70 Michigan State (2021) – lost in First Four
#63 Arizona State (2019) – advanced to 1st round
 
Last edited:

Thanks for the analysis. I knew Rutgers lost some stinkers but didn’t realize non con SOS was so awful. On flip side I didn’t appreciate how strong Michigan NET was.

If I was on the committee I would not put Xavier in. They are a first round loss waiting to happen and might be in the worst free fall of any recent at-large team.

I’ll miss St. Bonaventure this year. I won’t miss Syracuse or Virginia.

Great job as always, Hodger. Good luck against the hacks on TV!😇
 

Tournament needs to change !!!

All this net rankings, strength of schedule and eye test BS.
PUT EVERYBODY IN OR GO TO 16 TEAM INVITATIONAL !
 

I didn't realize Rutgers was facing a question on it.
They tied for 4th in the Big Ten, so it would be strange for them to not make it with a strong Big Ten record. But they also have an RPI of 90.

Even though RPI isn't relied on like before, that would be a straight disqualified in years past because the lowest RPI teams to make the tournament previously was usually around 67, although Michigan State got in last year with a 96 prior to losing their playoff game to UCLA.

NET Quad 1&2 Records Combined (Quad 1 Only):
Texas A&M 9-9 (4-9)
Rutgers 9-10 (6-6)
Xavier 9-11 (5-8)
SMU 6-6 (2-2)
Notre Dame 4-9 (2-8)
Oklahoma 10-14 (4-12)
Wyoming 11-6 (4-5)

NET Quad 3&4 Records
Texas A&M 13-2
Rutgers 9-3
Xavier 9-2
SMU 17-2
Notre Dame 17-1
Oklahoma 8-1
Wyoming 13-2

RPI's
Texas A&M 58
Rutgers 90
Xavier 62
SMU 43
Notre Dame 59
Oklahoma 68
Wyoming 26
 
Last edited:

Doing a review of the numbers, it's a question of will a bad loss mean more than a good win.

If Notre Dame goes before Rutgers, it's about avoiding a bad loss.
If it's about good wins, Rutgers should be in ahead of Notre Dame.
 


Face The Facts said:
Doing a review of the numbers, it's a question of will a bad loss mean more than a good win.

If Notre Dame goes before Rutgers, it's about avoiding a bad loss.
If it's about good wins, Rutgers should be in ahead of Notre Dame.
Click to expand...
Historically it seems that more than pure who you beat and who you lost to, overall strength of schedule is a dividing line between in and out. Rutgers is a good team . They lost a few while their best player was down but they also chose to schedule a terribly soft pre season schedule. That could very well bite them.

Nebraska a few years back had gaudy B1G record, but was left out. Difference between that and Rutgers is Nebraska didn’t beat any of the top conference teams and Rutgers did. Would be ironic if they are left out because of the Gophers best game of the year.
 


2021 Years Power 5 Snubs were:

Louisville (RPI 50, Net 56)
Quad 1&2 (Quad 1 only): 7-6 (1-6)
Quad 3&4: 9-2

Ole Miss (RPI 102, Net 53)
Quad 1&2 (Quad 1 only): 7-10 (3-5)
Quad 3&4: 9-2

2021 Last two in:

Michigan State RPI 96, NET 70):
Quad 1&2 (Quad 1 only): 9-13 (5-11)
Quad 3&4: 6-0

UCLA (RPI: 44, NET 46)
Quad 1&2 (Quad 1 only)10-10 (5-7)
Quad 3&4: 12-0

The two teams who made it played a total of 22 and 20 games vs Quad 1 and Quad 2.
Two teams who missed played 13 and 17 games.
Both teams who made last two in were unbeaten against Quad 3 and Quad 4, where 2 losses for Louisville and Ole Miss was enough to push them out.
 

I just want to point out that some of the OOC "choices" are not made by the coach. Rutgers was assigned Clemson & @DePaul. They also played @SetonHall for an in-state rivalry game. Added a road game vs UMass. There are few teams in the country that play 3 true road games. The B1G plays 20 league games so there are not many opportunities to grab extra super games and you don't want to push your team too hard.

Sure, you can criticize them for not getting better "buy" games than they did. You can also question why they didn't play in a neutral exempt tourney. That too can sometimes be tough to coordinate.

I'm not going to be upset if they are left out. They needed to get one more win and they would be fine. I just think it is important to note that some aspects of scheduling are up to the TV networks.
 



Lion King said:
Tournament needs to change !!!

All this net rankings, strength of schedule and eye test BS.
PUT EVERYBODY IN OR GO TO 16 TEAM INVITATIONAL !
Click to expand...
Everybody is already in. It’s called the conference tournaments. At the start of the conference tournaments, every single team in the nation can still win the National title.
 

Urbandale said:
Everybody is already in. It’s called the conference tournaments. At the start of the conference tournaments, every single team in the nation can still win the National title.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
We were talking about the NCAA at large bids.
 


rowdaboat said:
Sure seems like Oklahoma wins resume comparison vs Wyoming, Xavier, or Notre Dame
Click to expand...
I'd take Rutgers over all of those with all of those wins over tournament teams.
 



I'm a little late to the party, but we differ on 2. None have been called yet though.

I have SMU and Oklahoma in. (my last 2 teams in)

I have Xavier and Indiana out.
 

My final report card.

I was 34 for 36 on the at-larges. I had Texas A&M and Xavier in, Notre Dame and Rutgers made it in their place.

Jerry Palm was 35 for 36. He had Texas A&M in, Rutgers made it in their place.

Joe Lunardi was 35 for 36, as well. Lunardi had Texas A&M in, Wyoming made it in their place.

So we all missed Texas A&M, and then I missed one other.

I'm pleased missing only 2. I have no qualms with the at-large teams the committee selected.
 

SelectionSunday said:
My final report card.

I was 34 for 36 on the at-larges. I had Texas A&M and Xavier in, Notre Dame and Rutgers made it in their place.

Jerry Palm was 35 for 36. He had Texas A&M in, Rutgers made it in their place.

Joe Lunardi was 35 for 36, as well. Lunardi had Texas A&M in, Wyoming made it in their place.

So we all missed Texas A&M, and then I missed one other.

I'm pleased missing only 2. I have no qualms with the at-large teams the committee selected.
Click to expand...
You had Davidson in as well.
 

I have updated final NET rankings through games played on Selection Sunday, as well other pertinent information. Rutgers (#77) officially becomes the worst NET ranking to receive an at-large bid since the NCAA's move to the NET in 2019.

My 2 misses this year were Texas A&M and Xavier. Notre Dame and Rutgers made it in their place

Updated Palm/Lunardi/SS At-Large Accuracy Totals Since Field Expanded to 68
1 Palm: 386 of 400 (96.7%)
2 Lunardi: 384 of 400 (96%)
3 SS: 381 of 400 (95.3%)

See you next season.
 

SelectionSunday said:
I have updated final NET rankings through games played on Selection Sunday, as well other pertinent information. Rutgers (#77) officially becomes the worst NET ranking to receive an at-large bid since the NCAA's move to the NET in 2019.

My 2 misses this year were Texas A&M and Xavier. Notre Dame and Rutgers made it in their place

Updated Palm/Lunardi/SS At-Large Accuracy Totals Since Field Expanded to 68
1 Palm: 386 of 400 (96.7%)
2 Lunardi: 384 of 400 (96%)
3 SS: 381 of 400 (95.3%)

See you next season.
Click to expand...
Disregard
 



I'm glad they put Rutgers in. Also happy that Xavier was left out, you can't play that poorly down the stretch and expect to be rewarded.

Very surprised that Notre Dame was given a gift. Slightly surprised about Michigan as well. There was no one, even A&M that has a real gripe so overall, on selection, give them a B+.

I have bigger issues with some of the seeding, but not worth arguing about either. Nothing so extreme that it matters.
 

Once Indiana got to the BTT semifinals, I thought it was a slam dunk the Big Ten would get nine.

Zero chance the committee was going to leave a name brand Big Ten team like Michigan out, while the Wolverines were sitting at #34 in the rankings the committee is supposed to use to select teams.

Rutgers had too many good wins to be left out. The two bad losses early in the year were very easy to ignore with the other side of the ledger so strong. The Rutgers loss to Minnesota was actually a Quad 2 loss, so not a terrible loss when put blindly on a team's spread sheet. Most bubble teams had a few ugly marks, but none had the quality or quantity of wins of the Scarlet Knights.
 

tjgopher said:
Once Indiana got to the BTT semifinals, I thought it was a slam dunk the Big Ten would get nine.

Zero chance the committee was going to leave a name brand Big Ten team like Michigan out, while the Wolverines were sitting at #34 in the rankings the committee is supposed to use to select teams.

Rutgers had too many good wins to be left out. The two bad losses early in the year were very easy to ignore with the other side of the ledger so strong. The Rutgers loss to Minnesota was actually a Quad 2 loss, so not a terrible loss when put blindly on a team's spread sheet. Most bubble teams had a few ugly marks, but none had the quality or quantity of wins of the Scarlet Knights.
Click to expand...

Thats right justify getting 9
9 will lose,
 





Plato said:
63 will lose and one will win.
Stop whoever is pissing in your cereal, it might help your disposition.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is the Big Ten does not deserve 9 teams , its ridiculous !!
 

Lion King said:
All I'm saying is the Big Ten does not deserve 9 teams , its ridiculous !!
Click to expand...

I just see it as 9 Big 10 Teams happened to be amongst the At Large qualifiers based on the merit of their overall body of work. Conference affiliation has nothing to do with the discussion when these teams secure their bids.

As mentioned earlier, even the bottom feeders of the conference did ok/well in the non-conference so they did not drag the qualifiers down. 3 of them (Michigan, Indiana, & Rutgers) barely made it, just happened to separate themselves from the other middling bubble teams with some big wins.

Thems the breaks.
 

Ope3 said:
I just see it as 9 Big 10 Teams happened to be amongst the At Large qualifiers based on the merit of their overall body of work. Conference affiliation has nothing to do with the discussion when these teams secure their bids.

As mentioned earlier, even the bottom feeders of the conference did ok/well in the non-conference so they did not drag the qualifiers down. 3 of them (Michigan, Indiana, & Rutgers) barely made it, just happened to separate themselves from the other middling bubble teams with some big wins.

Thems the breaks.
Click to expand...

I know why,just don't agree with this money grab. If you can't at least finish in the top 4 in your conference,why the hell should you get to play for a championship ? I KNOW ,IT'S THE MONEY !!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom