I began to pour over the numbers last night and three things came clear to me.
1. Furman probably doesn’t have a chance at an at-large. Their main computer numbers (NET, KenPom, and BPI) are mid 40’s to 50’s and their Quad 1 and 2 records are 1-5 and 3-1. Now, these are good enough for a Power 5 to get a 9 seed but this is a mid major we are talking about.
2. The Power 5 bubble teams all look the same and it’s not good. I know records aren’t supposed to matter that much but look at what’s “in” right now…18-13, 17-14, 16-15, 19-12, 19-12. That’s flat out gross. I hope every single one of those teams lose their first round conference tournament games. They are all below .500 in conference (also not “considered”) and the best record against Quad 1 and 2 is 9-14 (Texas). Let me remind you again, these are bubble teams IN! Out, which for me are NC State, Alabama, Creighton, and Indiana are actually worse! Well, NC State is 8-8 against Q1 and Q2 but their Non-Conference Strength of Schedule is +350. Hello Syracuse and St. Mary’s of years past.
3. Belmont, who I am probably putting in over Furman today, has a profile that not only should get them in, but *should* slot them around a 10 seed if only they had a different name, like “Clemson” or “Florida”. The Bruins sport computer numbers in the mid 40’s, a 5-3 record against Q1 and Q2, and a NCSOS of 76. That shows me they pushed themselves and still won the hard games. You can’t tell me if Belmont played 10 more Q1 and Q2 games they would have went 0-10. 2-8 in those games gives them a better Q1/Q2 record than Ohio St, Florida, Texas, Clemson, TCU, and Indiana.
As a side note, Arizona State is a very curious case for the committee this year. They are 11-5 vs Q1/Q2 but 6-2 vs Q4. Is that better than Clemson at 8-12 vs Q1/Q2 but 6-0 against Q4?