Wes Miller Continues to Do an Exceptional Job

 

Roughly a year ago, when UC fans were panicking because Wes Miller’s Bearcat team wasn’t going to make the NCAA tournament in year 2, I wrote an article titled “Why I think Wes Miller will bring UC Back.”  Year 2 ultimately saw UC jump 50 spots in kenpom from year one.  It saw a team make the NIT quarterfinals.  It saw a team with predictive metrics of a fringe tournament team.  It was a huge step in the right direction. 

                So here we are a year later, in the toughest conference in college basketball, and I continue to read about how bad this team is from far too many.  This year’s team has jumped another 15ish spots in the predictive metrics despite losing 5 of its top 6 scorers from last year and playing in the best conference in college basketball.  It has the predictive metrics of a solid tournament team, though the resume metrics are that of a bubble team. 

So, with a few weeks left to go, UC sits squarely on the bubble, with more chances to play their way in.  That is an accomplishment and a testament to the job Wes Miller has done with this basketball team. 

 

This Team is Missing Top of the Roster Starters

                Almost every team that makes the tournament as an at large team will have top of the roster starters.  UC just doesn’t have them.  Wes restocked the roster last offseason with Big 12 level guys at nearly every position (and developed a few that were in the program on his own), but none of those guys are top of the roster starters.  Evan Miya had a great chart that really visualizes this:

Evan Miya Tweet

                These are the top 40 teams by NET.  Only Oklahoma’s and Washington States’ top guy is as low as Dan Skillings, UC’s top guy by Miya’s metric.  But if you look, there is a cluster up by Skillings.  The spread in UC’s 7 most impactful guys isn’t very much.  They are all good players, nobody is great. 

                I don’t think that’s an indictment on Wes’s roster building either.  If Nolley had returned this year they’d probably have that true high end guy they are missing.  And there are guys on the roster that I think are going to develop into that as soon as next season.  Dan Skillings has made an enormous leap from 1 to year 2.  He’s been the best guy on this team more often than anyone during Big 12 play. 

                Jizzle James is making as big of an impact as I can remember any Freshman making at UC since Jarron Cumberland.  There is every reason to believe he is going to be an elite college basketball player.  Transfers often make their biggest jump from year 1 to year 2 in a program.  Aziz, Reynolds, Simas and Day Day have all shown glimpses of what could make them special players.  There is every reason to believe all can make jumps next year (not that all of them will, but they don’t need all of them to). 

                And UC doesn’t need everyone to be a top of the roster starter… they just need a few. 

 

What Wes is Doing Without Top of the Roster Starters is Absurdly Impressive

                Look at that chart again.  UC is a complete anomaly among the NET top 40 teams.  Almost everyone has not just better high end guys, significantly better high end guys, than UC.   UC’s best player varies so much game to game, hell, sometimes several times a game.   

                Which is why, we’ve seen Wes tinker throughout the season, working to find the right lineup combinations, working to figure out who has it that night, or who is the best matchup within a specific game.  Aziz Bandaogo can look like the best player on the floor against UCF the other night, or against BYU, but completely out of place against Iowa State. 

                In games where the floor opens up Newman can really bring you a lot of offense, particularly getting to the rim, but he’s also been reliable on open threes.  In games, where the defenses are elite in their rotations, he has really struggled. 

Dan has been the closest thing to a consistent, game after game, guy in Big 12 play, but we all know there are segments where his offense tends to disappear.  Simas is our best decision maker and best at understanding where to go with the ball, but defenses can force him into some turnovers when they really pressure him. 

This team has a variety of skills from a variety of very different, good, big 12 level basketball players.  But they are all really guys not meant to carry a team (at least at this point in the college basketball careers).  Wes has found ways to balance that.  To stay in games when he’s not getting the play he needs from a couple of guys, by identifying and leaning on guys who are playing better or perhaps are just better matchups in that particular game. 

The fact that this team has only been blown out once in conference play is a testament to the absurd job Wes is doing at navigating the roster limitations.  He has consistently put UC in position to win games, and while they haven’t won them all, they have 3Q1 road wins in conference.  They have a home win over TCU (A Q2 A win at the moment).  They are firmly on the bubble with a chance to play their way into the tournament.  That is a huge deal for a team that replaced 5 of its top 6 scorers from last season and jumped from the American Athletic Conference to the Best Conference in College Basketball (by a wide margin).

 

It’s Also a Big Deal for Next Season

                I don’t want to spend too much time on next season, because I think there is plenty to play for this year and believe this team is still well positioned to get UC back to the dance… but Wes didn’t just bring in one year, stop-gap guys.  He has a roster positioned to have significant continuity in year 2 in the Big 12, and the potential to make an enormous leap (and that’s without portal additions).

                Getting all of these guys another year in the program will be huge for their development.  Dan and Jizzle are two guys I am confident will be stars… and I think next year is a reasonable timetable for both.  Reynolds and Aziz are both very capable centers who have showed potential to be more.  They are very different and could be a great two headed monster next season.  Simas will have another year in the program to grow with the guys around him. 

                This feels like a roster poised to make a huge leap next year.  And that’s before the portal where even one big time addition could be enormous.  I’d be shocked if they weren’t a top 25 team next year.  I’d be surprised if they weren’t a top 20 team.  I think they have a great chance to be a top 15 team next year.  Because we’ve seen a team, without stars, integrating a ton of new pieces, navigating injuries, and missing guys due to transfer issues, do a lot of great things.  Once this team has the high end starters that nearly every other top 40 team has, the sky is the limit. 

                All of that is a testament to the job Wes Miller is doing this season, and the job he is doing building this program to put it in position to succeed in the future.  We are lucky to have one of the best young coaches in college basketball.  I wish more fans would enjoy the ride. 

Transition Seasons are Hard

 

I feel like I was just writing one of these “don’t panic” pieces about Wes Miller and the basketball program (because I was).  I don’t write about sports very often anymore, but Saturday was one of the most frustrating days as a Bearcat football fan since 2017… so I have a lot to say.  The Bearcats are now 2-4 in the Satterfield era, two years removed from an improbable college football playoff run.  It’s disappointing.  It’s frustrating.  But it shouldn’t be surprising given the roster transition, coaching transition and conference transition. 

Bearcat fans seem to have collective amnesia, completely unable to remember the struggles of past transitions.  In most cases, Year 1 is a terrible year for judging whether your coaching hire will be successful.  That is especially true when you understand the complete talent drain Satterfield walked into at QB, wide receiver, offensive line and in the secondary.  The offense was almost entirely a complete, one year, rebuild… with 10 new starters, most of which were not on the roster last season.  And the results on the field have reflected that situation. 

There is nothing fans love to do more than blame coaches at every sign of trouble.  When things aren’t working it’s always “the play calling” or the “lack of effort” or the “lack of fire” from the staff.  I don’t know whether this staff will be successful long term (it’s too early)… just like I didn’t know whether look Fickell would be successful after his 4-8 first season, or Dantonio after his struggles the first two seasons, or hell, even Tuberville, who managed 9-4 but was playing in the AAC with talent recruited for the Big East… a huge advantage.  What I know, is overreacting in year 1 is really silly, and there are major talent issues on this roster, which is playing the highest level of competition its played since the Big East collapsed. 

 

The story of this season has been a lack of difference makers on offense combined with a middle of the AAC caliber offensive line. 

The dirty little secret of the Luke Fickell era was the offensive line was never particularly good, 2020 was the loan exception, and even then, it really only had one big time player.  It didn’t matter because UC played in the American and the offensive line was middle of the American caliber.  It also didn’t matter because UC had an absurd amount of talent everywhere else on offense.  In 2021 UC had an NFL QB, 3 NFL wide receivers, 2 NFL tight ends, and an NFL running back.  It was more than enough to steamroll even good teams, despite the offensive line issues.  Hell, even last year, UC had 2 NFL wide receivers and 2 NFL tight Ends.  Despite that, the offense finished 73^rd in SP+ adjusted offensive efficiency.  The downgrade at QB, and the loss of a gamebreaker running back just made things significantly more difficult given the offensive line issues. 

When Coach Satterfield was hired none of that remained other than a couple of pieces from a middle of the road AAC offensive line… that now needed to compete in the Big 12.  The offense was cobbled together from the portal with a journeyman 6^th year QB, transfer wide receivers, and some transfer lineman who either played at low level schools or didn’t start for their P5 programs.  There are 10 new starters on that side of the football. 

The staff did an admirable job fielding a semi-competent offense that ranks very similar to last year’s offense, despite last year’s offense having 4 NFL skill guys (something this group is missing).  I don’t like to rip on the guys that chose to be here.  They aren’t bad, there are just no true difference makers among them, and that has made things really difficult for one enormous reasons (and another smaller, but related one).

 

This team can’t seem to make any chunk plays. 

Everything is hard for this offense.  To score, they need to sustain long drives, with a middle of the AAC caliber offensive line.  Until this past week, they managed to sustain those drives but not finish enough with touchdowns.  Going into last week UC led the nation in first downs and were a top 15 team in yards per game.  Despite some major talent liabilities they were moving the ball.

If you are looking for positive signs from this coaching staff in year 1 that is the biggest one.  Last year’s team had similar deficiencies at offensive line and qb.  As a result, last year’s team was pretty terrible at sustaining drives.  However, last year’s team made up for it because it had NFL players at wide receiver and tight end that could turn a few of those 5 yard passes into 40 yard passes and make big chunk plays.  The fact that this year’s offense ranks similar in SP+ despite significantly lesser weapons to me indicates that if the talent can get back to where it needs to be, the offense could be really good in the future. 

Satterfield referenced it last week that the running backs just aren’t the explosive guys that are going to get you those chunk plays.  That’s perhaps even truer of the wide receivers.  It’s a tough combination that requires the offense to be mistake free and nearly perfect in their execution to score points…because they have to sustain long drives over many plays.  I think the wide receivers and running backs are solid players, but they aren’t difference makers that can stretch the field and make the defense respect their ability to make big plays. 

Basically, I think the staff has done a good job of scheming yards with long drives, despite having a mid-tier AAC offensive line and no playmakers.  But without the big plays one mistake and the drives stall without points (or with 3 instead of 7).  That also gets into the other issue which is redzone scoring.  For me the redzone scoring issues come down to two big things.

1.      The offensive line doesn’t move people so when the field condenses and the schemed/manufactured yards go away, we don’t have an answer.

2.      Our skill guys aren’t able to create separation in tight spaces. 

That combination has been the biggest issues I’ve seen all season long.  It’s been true in every game except this past weekend against Iowa State when UC couldn’t move the ball at all.  So let’s talk about that disaster.

 

Iowa State may have just been a really bad matchup for UC (which was compounded by UC’S big mistakes). 

 

The great folks at Bearcatjournal alluded to this even before the game and it played out how some of the fears from the pregame coverage thought.  Iowa State is a borderline elite defense.  The rank 12^th in SP+ adjusted defense, and their secondary in particular is excellent.  When you are going against an elite (or near elite) unit, sometimes talent is the only answer. 

Bearcat fans should be familiar with this.  Sonny Dykes is viewed around the sport as a pretty elite game planner and offensive schemer.  In 2021 and 2022 he had a couple very prolific offenses that even featured some NFL talent at wide receiver.  In 2021, the Bearcat defense held its starting QB to 66 yards on 26 passes, and held SMU scoreless for 3 quarters.  In 2020 the Bearcat defense held them to 13 points.  To some degree I think this is what UC ran into on Saturday.  This was the best defense UC will see all season.  The wide receivers couldn’t get separation and the offensive line couldn’t block them.  TheY dared UC to beat them over the top, or make someone miss in space and UC never could. 

Iowa State on offense is a big play dependent team that struggles sustaining drives.  Of course, the Uc defense has struggled at preventing the Big play all season.  In this case, a few of the big plays came on special teams meltdowns that really hurt, but Iowa State still managed some big down field passes.  And perhaps most frustrating when UC got the stops the needed, theY either committed a penalty (a really weAk Roughing the Passer was a tough one) or allowed a successful Fake fg, or had some other breakdown. 

Saturday was bad.  It was bad in many aspects.  But it also may have been a particularly bad matchup for this team. 

 

Transition Seasons are hard.

That’s what I titled this post initially, but it bears repeating.  And this is not a normal transition year.  Uc is not only navigating a coaching change, it is navigating massive roster turnover (particularly on offense), and a significant increase in competition.  Uc has transitioned coaches many times since I’ve followed Uc football.  let’s look at those.

Minter went 2-8-1 the year after UC went 8-3.

Dantonio went 7-5 with maybe the most talented front seven UC has had on defense (Trent Cole, Andre Frasier, Mike Wright, Tyjaun Hagler all with long NFL careers) and senior year Gino Guidugli. That team lost to an Army team that was on basically a 3 year winless streak at the time. And had the most embarrassing UC loss of my lifetime at Louisville (70-7).  (But the most relatable season to this one might actually be Dantonio year 2, which I’ll explain soon)

Brian Kelly handled the transition best.  I’d argue he easily had the best combination of returning talent and roster stability (and he was our best coach…let’s not kid ourselves).  Dantonio’s last team played a loaded schedule and held up well, despite being relatively young.  Kelly jumped into a program ready to roll.  However, even he lost back to back games to Kragthorp and Weinstandt.

Butch Jones inherited a team that ran the table the prior regular season that had a ton of talent back and managed to guide them to a 4-8 campaign.

Tommy Tuberville had a 9-4 campaign, that in a vacuum looks fine, but he also inherited a great situation from a roster standpoint.  All those players were recruited to play in a BCS conference and now got to play an AAC schedule.  If you’re judging Tommy by year 1 you might have been somewhat encouraged, but it’s another reason we can’t overreact to year 1.

Luke Fickell went 4-8 and was very close to 1-11.  That Miami win in particularly came at the helping of one of the most epic, choke jobs I’ve ever seen. 

Other than Brian Kelly’s first year, I remember many fans being pissed at the coaching in every one of those seasons.  Because that’s all many fans seem to know when things go wrong… blame the coach.  My point isn’t that Satterfield will work out.  My point is it is way too early to make any kind of judgment in that regard.  His success will depend on his ability to bring in and develop talent (like every coach that takes a job).  It is just impossible to have any idea of that in year 1. 

 

The last time we jumped from a middle of the road conference to a power conference year 1 was a lot worse. 

The season that keeps coming back into my head when I watch this team is not actually Dantonio’s first year… it’s his second.  Dantonio’s first year he had a really talented senior class and a ton of roster stability and he had a decent enough season (though a couple huge low points and he probably underachieved relative to that talent).  But year 2 had a lot of similarities to this one in terms of the roster issues and the jump in competition.   That’s because UC lost nearly all its best players that offseason at the same time UC made the jump to the Big East. 

The Bearcats went 4-7 in their inaugural Big East season.  These were their losses:

At Penn State 42-24

At Miami (OH) 44-16 (Yikes!)

At Pitt 38-20

Louisville 46-22

West Virginia 38-0

At South Florida 31-16

At Rutgers 44-9

 

The Bearcats weren’t only losing to everyone in front of them, they were getting destroyed.  I don’t think the roster was in as bad a shape this time around, so things have looked better (even if the record is similar).  I think the front seven on defense has been Big 12 caliber from day 1.  I think the transfer portal allowed Uc to at least have back tier Big 12 type guys at the skill positions and even QB…but Uc has no big 12 level difference makers on offense, has an AAC offensive line, and a secondary that isn’t Big 12 ready.  Uc is struggling with those issues.

And Uc isn’t think only team.  The four teams making the leap from the AAC to the Big 12 have combined for one win over the Big 12 teams that were already in the conference.  That win was courtesy of a Hail Mary for Houston at home against WVU.  All three of those teams are in the middle of extended periods of coaching and roster stability.  They aren’t replacing their entire coaching staff and starting 10 new offensive players, most of which were not on the roster last year.  These kind of jumps almost always come with growing pains (see TCU and Utah back in the day).  When they are combined with huge roster issues and a brand new coaching staff… well use some common sense.

The National Media, Vegas, and the Big 12 media all saw these issues coming.  UC was picked 13^th out of 14 in the Big 12.  Their over/under from vegas was 4.5 wins.  This wasn’t an accident.  The roster issues were evident.  It’s not always coaching when things don’t go your way.  Ultimately, the best coaches are going to struggle when there are major talent deficiencies. 

What level of coach is Satterfield?  I don’t know.  And I wasn’t going to know one way or the other this season.  If they’d struck gold on their secondary and offensive line transfers and this team was 4-2 instead of 2-4, I would have just as little of a clue about what it meant for the long term future of the program.  Transition seasons almost always tell us very little.  Until Satterfield has had time to recruit and develop players over multiple season, we just won’t know. 

But this season was bound to be hard.  Fans can have collective amnesia and pretend that their issues have to be coaching related, but I will remember past transitions…understand that the circumstances of this one are probably the hardest any Uc coach has had to deal with in year 1, and reserve judgment on the future of the program until the coach is given time. 

Vote No on Issue One, A Corrupt, Government Power Grab at the Expense of Ohio Voters

 Issue One is a corrupt, government power grab at the expense of Ohio voters.  Vote No.

Since 1912, Ohio law has allowed Ohio voters to amend the Constitution.  The process is already one of the most onerous in the country.  Five percent of Ohio Voters in 44 of the 88 counties must sign initiatives to get the amendments on the ballot then a majority of voters must pass the amendment in a general election. Not surprisingly, Ohio voters have responsibly used this process for more than a century, often to address government overreach and corruption.  Corrupt, Ohio politicians now seek to further consolidate government power over Ohio voters by enacting a process that would effectively kill the citizen led amendment process.  Ohio voters must reject this government power grab and vote no. 

Ohio voters have successfully used this process to place limits on Ohio’s ability to tax voters.  When Ohio voters grew concerned that their property taxes were being raised to support government spending, voters placed limits on the governments’ ability to raise their property taxes without voter approval.  Because of this restriction, politicians now come to the voters seeking their permission when they want to raise property taxes (in the form of school levies, police and fire levies, etc.).  Ohio voters also successfully used this process to eliminate taxes on food.  Ohio voters saw fit to protect their money when politicians failed to do so and were able to because of the process corrupt politicians now seek to destroy.

In recent years, Ohio voters have used the initiative process to create a nonpartisan redistricting process.  Corrupt legislators have actually ignored this process, repeatedly creating illegal districts the courts strike down, and are fearful Ohio voters will attempt to use the initiative process to prevent this continued illegal conduct in the future.  Ohio voters have used the process to approve Casinos in the state, which has resulted in additional tax revenue.  Ohio voters have also used the process to add constitutional protections for victims of crime.  

Perhaps just as importantly, Ohio voters have rejected amendments when they have catered to specific outside interests.  In 2015, a group of investors, many outside Ohio, sought to legalize marijuana use.  The initiative catered to those specific investors to potentially create a monopoly for the investors in the commercial sale of marijuana.  The measure was soundly rejected by 65% of Ohio voters, despite the legalization of marijuana generally polling much higher.  Despite what issue one advocates would have you believe, Ohio voters have recognized outside influence and acted responsibly to reject it.  This responsible use of the initiative process is consistent throughout its history in Ohio.  Voters know what they are voting for, but corrupt politicians fear it because they don’t want voters to have power over them.

Issue 1 would have no chance of passing in a normal election, so corrupt Ohio politicians are trying to pass it when voters aren’t paying attention.  Ohio law forbids August elections for that reason…August elections don’t produce a normal sample of the electorate.  These corrupt politicians have specifically written in a carve out for this ballot initiative, because they know Ohio voters would reject it and are hoping to jam it through when you are not paying attention.  Of course, it would only require a majority vote…as would any politician-passed initiative in the future.  It is only your power over them that corrupt politicians seek to eliminate.  

Don’t let them.  Issue One is a corrupt, government power grab at the expense of Ohio voters.  Vote No.

Why I Think Wes Miller Will Bring UC Back

I've seen many Bearcat fans who are very down on this team and Wes Miller in general.  I understand the longing for Bearcat Basketball to immediately get back to the Huggins Glory Years, or even the sustained success of the Mick Cronin era, but I think that longing has blinded too many to the strides this team is making.  It's year 2 of the Wes Miller era.  He hasn't achieved enough to know whether he's the guy.  However, I will admit to being optimistic about the direction the program is heading under Wes.  Here is why I see more reasons for optimism than many seem to.

1. The UC basketball program was in a very bad place when Wes took over. Fans have not considered this factor nearly enough. UC finished 116 kenpom in Brannen's last year. Keith Williams (By far UC's best player that season) was gone. Tari Easton (by far UC's most talented player that season) was gone. 3 guys that had given real minutes were on the roster (JD, DDJ, and MAW). Wes took the job very late in the game. We weren't significantly better positioned than Mick when he took over and this time we didn't have the Big East...or a decade and a half of being a top 10 basketball program to sell recruits on. This was an uphill battle.

2. The jump in quality of play they've made from the last two seasons to this one is substantial. Too many are underselling this. And the key guys on the roster this year are largely the same.  A Bearcat fan friend expressed concerns about "same guy syndrome" coming into this season. The core of this team is largely the same as last year except we lost our two centers and replaced them with Vik (who wasn't ready the year before), lost our best wing defender to injury, and added Nolley.

This team as of right now has jumped 50 spots in kenpom from last year's team. That is an enormous jump. Here is the climb UC made Mick's first 5 years via kenpom:

Year 1: 141 kenpom (11-19 overall)
Year 2: 102 kenpom (13-19 overall)
Year 3: 86 kenpom (18-14 overall)
Year 4: 68 kenpom (19-16 overall)
Year 5: 21 kenpom (26-9 overall) - this was the big jump. The breakthrough we were waiting for.

When you evaluate rebuilds, it's really silly to not consider where you are coming from...and look at improvements. Yea...we'd all feel significantly better with more good wins. But the raise in quality of play, with largely the same team, is undeniable. which brings me to my next point, and my biggest reason for optimism with Wes.

3. The key players on this team have made massive leaps as basketball players. This is the player development and finding the right roles for guys aspect that has me very excited about Wes.

Vik was largely lost last season. We could see the talent, but the feel wasn't there. Vik has been exceptional this season. Wes has him understanding how to play off screens and play downhill on offense. He has him with a better feel in the post of when to attack and when to anticipate the double team. He rarely turns it over, he's an elite rebounder, and he is hitting 62% of his shots. On defense, he has cut down on his silly fouls, while still being incredibly disruptive and a damn good help defender. His jump is a testament to him and the good coaching he has received.

DDJ has become an efficient offensive player. His inefficiency on offense was often a major detriment to the Bearcats the last two years despite his skill. This year he has a 114.2 kenpom offensive rating (all three key guys are that or higher). He's done it by taking fewer bad shots (he still takes some) and playing to his facilitation skills. He has the highest assist rate on the team (and the 92nd-best in the country)..and that has gotten better as the season has gone on. He's just so much better now.

Likewise Nolley has become a far more efficient player. He could always shoot, but at Memphis he was a barely above average offensive player once you factored in turnovers and shot selection. He's taking better shots, he's turning it over lessand he has career highs in rebound rate. Dude was a great talent who has taken his game to a new level here.

JD is having a really bad shooting year, but despite that, his offensive rating is exactly what it has been. That's because he has been better in nearly every aspect of his game. His turnover rate is the lowest it has ever been (it's the 50th best in the country). He's doubled his assist rate from last season. He's not forcing nearly as many bad shots (though as we all know, JD is still JD and we wish he'd be better). He's a flawed player, but Wes has done a good job minimizing his flaws.

I think he's maximized the effectiveness of MAW and Ody as well. These aren't guys that ideally you'd have to play major minutes, but we do and do so effectively.

4. Closely related to that, Wes has shown an ability to adapt on the fly with his team. If you read anything Chad Brendel was reporting on from the preseason, he said this team was going to really struggle to defend and rebound. That was absolutely the case early (particularly defend...they mostly rebounded OK other than the OSU and Temple games). Wes tweaked what they did in late November/early December. Their defensive numbers have been climbing rapidly ever since. They've been a top-20 defense since December 1. Up until the second half of the Tulane game (played without their only real rim protector), they were elite at protecting the rim while also running teams off the 3-point line. They are a very good offensive and defensive rebounding team (again with Vik..going to be interesting to see how they adjust without him). Their significant improvement and adapting within the season is very encouraging to me.

5. He's doing work on the recruiting trail and seems to be opening some doors to making a bigger leap in the future.

I'm not asking fans to give him a full 5 years like Mick had before making the tournament. There are some opportunities to improve more quickly now... but here's the thing. He has been improving more quickly. 50 spots in kenpom is a big leap (and they've honestly been much better than that since early December). If the trend continues, the results we're looking for will come.

Maybe the trend doesn't continue. Maybe he won't be the guy. But what I have seen so far does have me optimistic.

Final Bracket Prediction

1 Seeds                Kansas, Gonzaga, Arizona, Baylor

2 Seeds                Tennessee, Duke, Villanova, Kentucky

3 Seeds                Auburn, Purdue, UCLA, Wisconsin

4 Seeds                Texas Tech, Iowa, Illinois, Providence

5 Seeds                Houston, Arkansas, UConn, Seton Hall

6 Seeds                St. Marys, Boise State, Memphis, USC

7 Seeds                Murray St., San Diego State, Texas, LSU

8 Seeds                Colorado State, Creighton, Marquette, Iowa State

9 Seeds                Ohio State, Alabama, Loyola Chicago, Davidson

10 Seeds              TCU, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Wyoming,

11 Seeds              Miami (Fl), San Francisco, Rutgers, SMU/Indiana

12 Seeds              Texas A&M/Wake Forest, Chattanooga, UAB, New Mexico State

13 Seeds              Richmond, Vermont, South Dakota State, Cal State Fullerton

14 Seeds              Delaware, Georgia State, St Peters, Akron

15 Seeds              Yale, Jacksonville State, Longwood, Montana State

16 Seeds              Colgate, Norfolk State, Bryant / TX A&M CC, Texas Southern/Wright State

 

Last 4 in:  Texas A&M, SMU, Indiana, Wake Forest

First 5 Out:  Michigan, Xavier, Oklahoma, BYU, Notre Dame

 

Most likely to be wrong about:  Notre Dame…I don’t see how they have a tournament resume, but I seem to be in the minority. 

Team I think is more comfortably in than others seem to:  Wyoming.

 

First Bracket Prediction 2022

 

1 Seeds                Kansas, Gonzaga, Arizona, Baylor

2 Seeds                Tennessee, Duke, Villanova, Kentucky

3 Seeds                Auburn, Purdue, UCLA, Wisconsin

4 Seeds                Texas Tech, Iowa, Illinois, Providence

5 Seeds                Houston, Arkansas, UConn, Seton Hall

6 Seeds                St. Marys, Boise State, Memphis, USC

7 Seeds                Murray St., San Diego State, Texas, LSU

8 Seeds                Colorado State, Creighton, Marquette, Iowa State

9 Seeds                Ohio State, Alabama, Loyola Chicago, Davidson

10 Seeds              TCU, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Wyoming,

11 Seeds              Miami (Fl), San Francisco, Rutgers, Texas A&M

12 Seeds              SMU/Michigan, Indiana/Wake Forest, Chattanooga, UAB

13 Seeds              New Mexico State, Vermont, South Dakota State, Princeton

14 Seeds              Long Beach State, Delaware, Georgia State, St Peters

15 Seeds              Akron, Jacksonville State, Longwood, Montana State

16 Seeds              Colgate, Norfolk State, Bryant / TX A&M CC, Texas Southern/Wright State

 

Last 4 in:  SMU, Indiana, Wake Forest, Michigan

First 4 Out:  Xavier, Oklahoma, BYU, Notre Dame

 

Most likely to be wrong about:  Notre Dame…I don’t see how they have a tournament resume, but I seem to be in the minority. 

Team I think is more comfortably in than others seem to:  Wyoming

 

Ranking the Bubble 2022

 Here's my bubble rankings...  I included Creighton who actually is probably higher than some teams not on my bubble at this point, but I had already done most of their write-up before their Big East run.  Everyone above this list I think will definitely be in the tournament.  The list goes from most likely to make it to least likely to make it. Assuming Davidson wins the Atlantic 10, Michigan is my last team in the field.

 

Ranking the Bubble

Creighton- When I started this I wasn’t sure they would make it, but the trip to the Big East tournament championship probably makes them a lock at this point.  They are 7-5 Q1 and 4-4 Q2.  They swept UConn, beat Nova at home and have a neutral court win over Providence.  They were 3-0 against Marquette.  Really their only issue is they were swept by bubble Xavier, but they gap between those teams is so big at this point it really doesn’t matter.

Davidson- You hope the committee rewards a team like this.  24-5 overall.  5-4 vs. Q1/Q2.  13-5 q1 through Q3.  They have had a neutral court win over Alabama (who will make the tournament) and a road win over bubble VCU.  They are 9-2 on the road.  The A10 is a good conference.  This resume should be enough.

TCU- Right behind Davidson in NET, but a completely different kind of resume.  They went 8-10 in the loaded Big 12 (every team is top 75).  5-7 Q1, 4-3 Q2, 13-11 Q1 through Q3.  A couple of those are elite wins, beating Kansas and Texas Tech.  We also shouldn’t downplay the win at Hilton against Iowa State.  They’ve probably done enough as well.

North Carolina- The Duke win likely put them over the top.  5-7 Q1/Q2 record is iffy, but 16-0 Q2/Q3 is going to help.   They played a pretty strong schedule.  They won at Duke and at VT for their 2 Q1 wins.  It’s not an overly impressive resume, but there isn’t too much bad on it.  Their win at Cameron should be enough to get them in the field. 

Wyoming- The weakest resume of the 4 potential Mountain West bids, but honestly, it’s a tournament worthy resume.  4-4 Q1 is better than most the bubble and they combine that with a 6-1 Q2 record.  None of their Q1 wins are tier 1 type wins (their best is probably home against Colorado State and Boise State), but it’s a reasonably strong resume and the kind the committee should and likely will reward. 

San Francisco- Likely not in as good of shape as their 25 NET ranking would let you believe, but a team that should sneak in the field nonetheless.  3-6 Q1 isn’t great.  6-2 Q2 is fine.  Combined 14-8 against Q1-Q3 is going to be better than much of the lesser bubble teams.  Of course they did a lot of their damage against 1 bubble team (BYU).  They do have a nice neutral court win against Davidson and are 7-2 on the road. 

Miami (Fl)- Remember not to overvalue the actual NET ranking (Miami sits at 61).  It’s the strength of wins and losses that ultimately get a team in the field (even if the committee doesn’t always evaluate that properly).  Miami is 4-3 in Q1 games which is going to look good compared to the rest of the bubble.  That 5-4 Q2 record isn’t hurting them either.  They won at Duke, at bubble teams Virginia Tech and Wake Forest, as well as a neutral site win over North Texas.  They have home wins over bubble teams UNC and Wake Forest.  They also beat Wake on the road which probably puts them above Wake in the pecking order.

Virginia Tech- The trip the ACC Championship game just might do the trick.  They are only 2-5 Q1 and 6-5 Q2.  But they are really strong in the predictive metrics, so strong that I think it will and should make a difference.  2 wins over bubble Notre Dame and a recent neutral court win over UNC should help.  Despite only going 11-9 in the ACC, I think they have a better version of the Notre Dame resume (unbalanced schedules can make for wonky conference results). 

 

Rutgers – The lowest NET team that has a shot at the tournament.  They were abysmal in the nonconference (and it was an abysmal nonconference schedule).  However, they went 12-8 in a loaded big ten.  They were 6-6 against Q1 teams at that included wins over Iowa, Purdue, Illinois and Wisconsin.  Their road record is pretty bad (4-9) but those wins are over Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Maryland.  I think they’ll find a spot at the end of the bracket. 

Texas A&M- Probably out before the SEC tournament, but I suspect they played their way to the right side of the bubble.  4-9 Q1 but 5-0 Q2 for a respectable 9-9 Q1/Q2 record.  They are 5-5 on the road and did some damage in neutral site games getting Auburn and Arkansas in the SEC tournament as well as a nice win over Notre Dame.  The more I look at their resume, the more I think they have done enough.

SMU- Their predictive metrics and resume metrics mostly look like a tournament team.  I think they should be in.  They are 2-2 Q1 and 4-4 Q2.  That’s not a lot of Q1/Q2 wins and the committee typically penalizes teams that get fat on Q3/Q4 teams.  Their nonconference SOS of 273 won’t do them any favors.  They have 2 wins over Memphis and a win over Houston.  You’d hope that would carry some weight.  They also have a win over Dayton who will be close to the bubble.  I kind of think they’ll sneak in, but wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t. 

Indiana- They weren’t a tournament team prior to the big ten tournament, the question now is, did they do enough?  They’re 4-8 Q1, 4-4 Q2.  That’s a cut line style resume.  Most of their Q1 losses are upper tier Q1 losses.  They have a win over Purdue and a neutral court win over Illinois.  Their neutral court win over Notre Dame could come in handy if they are among the last couple teams considered. 

Wake Forest- They have a really iffy resume.  1-4 against Q1, 4-3 Q2.  Their best wins are road VT, and home against UNC and Notre Dame.  This is an end of the bracket team or a team that just misses. 

Michigan- Only 5-10 against Q1 and 3-3 against Q2.  How much credit will the committee give to playing a ton of Q1 games, when you lose a bunch of them.  The home win over Purdue is great.  So is the home win of San Diego State.  They have a couple nice road scalps as well, beating OSU and Indiana.  They’ll probably be right at the cutline. 

Xavier-  If you took their resume and shook it up, spreading everything over the course of the season evenly you may feel better about it (which is why they could still sneak in).  They are 5-8 Q1, 4-3 Q2 (so under .500 Q1/Q2) and have a couple Q3.  The sweep of Creighton is nice and the neutral site win over Virginia Tech could carry some weight against another bubble team.  They are a cutline type team that really depends on how committed the committee is to the entire body of work.  If there is any eye test for the team they are now, they are going to be left out.

Oklahoma- 18-15 is going to be tough to get past, but the Big 12 is unbelievably deep and really tough at the top.  Despite those losses they sit 39 NET.  They just beat Baylor, who could be a 1 seed, have a win over Texas Tech and beat Arkansas on a neutral floor.  They are 4-12 against Q1 teams and 6-2 Q2.  It’s a marginal resume and probably too many losses but they could sneak in. 

BYU- Another team at the end of the bracket, that I’m skeptical did enough.  They are definitely behind San Francisco in the pecking order.  The home St Marys win is great, but other than that there isn’t quite enough there.  The loss to Pacific hurts.  I’d be fine if they got in above a Michigan type team that has more but also had a ton more opportunities to get there, but I think they are more likely to be just outside. 

Notre Dame-  I honestly don’t see how you can put this team in the tournament.  The Kentucky win is great and the win at Miami is nice, but this team is 4-9 in Q1/Q2 games.  They got fat against bad teams going 17-1 in Q3/Q4.  They also have 3 neutral court losses to teams that will be near the cutline (Virginia Tech, Indiana, and Texas A&M).  You have to think that carries some weight when the committee tries to evaluate the end of the bracket.  They went 15-5 in the ACC so maybe the committee will value that, but when you did deep this team doesn’t have a tournament resume.

Dayton- Their case really comes down to how much the committee cares about bad losses.  Dayton has 3 really bad ones (3 losses to teams 248 and below in NET) and a loss to NET 226 on the road.  Those losses really get in the way of a lot of good.  Their 3-2 in Q1 games and those wins are Kansas (neutral), Virginia Tech (Home) and VCU (road).  They are 6-5 in Q2 games including wins over tournament teams Miami (fl) and Davidson.  Their Q1/Q2 record and wins is going to be better than most the bubble, but those bad losses are a huge anchor on the resume.  The committee mostly values your wins more than your losses so I could see Dayton sneaking in, but bubble teams don’t usually have bad losses to this level and ultimately I think it will keep them out.

VCU-  They have the opposite problem of Dayton.  They did great against the bad teams but don’t have enough good wins.  They are 3-3 against Q1 teams (fine) but only 3-5 against Q2 teams.  Mid major teams really need to be over .500 against Q1/Q2 to give themselves a chance.  I think they are out.

UAB- They made their conference championship.  They sit 49 NET (and right around there in the predictive metrics).  They are only 4-3 Q1/Q2 and racked up 12 Q4 wins.  That typically doesn’t cut it.

North Texas- Similar resume to UAB.  They are 6-4 against Q1/Q2, so there is a little more, but they have 11 Q4 wins.  Probably not enough.