APlus

My final bracket for 2026- my first year doing this! ▪️ Moved Purdue to a 2 seed, regardless of outcome today. ▪️Penn slots in as a 14, bumping N Dakota St to a 13 and UNI to a 12! ▪️ Auburn and SMU barely hang on to the field. ▪️ CONTINGENCY: If Wichita comes back against USF, they would be a 12 with Akron as an 11. #bracketology #BracketMatrix #MarchMadness #BubbleWatch

@BuckeyeDore Who couldve predicted something like that? 😂😂

Where’s BJ Edwards SMU 🤔🤔 Surely you guys didn’t lie to the committee right?

@trumwill @clonesjer I mean just go look at their Wins Above Bubble ratings... neither of those teams were even CLOSE to Texas

@clonesjer The fact that it wasn't even a conversation is maddening.

I'll say it: WVU & Cincy going 0.500 in the Big 12 should've gotten them in over a 0.500 Texas in a weak SEC.

Yeah unfortunately it came down to non conference performances- not the conference performances. Cincy lost to an atrocious Eastern Michigan team, and WVU didnt beat a single top 100 team in non con. Not that Texas was extremely impressive there either... but they were better than either of those teams.

@BuckeyeDore I honestly think the committee messed up with this one

If Auburn was held back for having too many losses, shouldn’t the same logic apply to top 4 protected seeds? 🤔 Kansas has elite wins, but also double-digit losses. Kansas' metrics also stack up worse vs. the other 4s than Auburn’s did vs. the rest of the bubble

Closing thought on why I had Auburn in the field: -6 of 7 Auburn metrics were <= 44 (#44 was the last at-large team selected) -Auburn is the first team to ever miss the field (NET era, since 2018-19 season) with every metric <= 46 as of Selection Sunday -Excluding teams that won 3+ conference tournament games, Auburn is the 1st Power Conference school to ever miss the field with both a NET and resume avg < 45.0 -Auburn is the first team to ever miss the field with a resume average < 50.0 and a true road win at a 1 seed -Auburn had three notable elite wins over SEC regular season champ Florida (A), SEC Tournament Champ Arkansas (H), and Big East double champ St. John's (N) -Auburn alone had six wins vs the at-large field. SMU, NC State and Miami OH combined had seven wins vs the at-large field -Auburn played an extremely difficult schedule, #4 overall/ #15 Non Conference SOS, and the metrics account for this Obviously, I could have gone with consensus and had Auburn out. But consensus also had West Virginia in last year... The Committee tends to throw us at least one curveball at the bubble. I took a shot, I was wrong. I can live with that.

Yeah I'd be fine with calling Navy/ Pitt and Mizzou/ UT a wash. Vandy/ USC wins can also be considered pretty equal. And then TAMU/ Oklahoma losses a wash as well. So then we're basically comparing a week 1 loss to FSU and 1-1 away from home vs Georgia to Notre Dame's 0-1 against Miami. In my mind, I was totally fine with giving the bid to the team that proved that they could beat a national champ contender- because I didn't feel like there were many teams who could do that this year. But to be fair Miami hadnt looked like a team who could beat a contender and they ended up beating 2!

I think the Alabama-Notre Dame comparison really comes down to eye test. They lost by like 4 points or whatever to Miami and Texas A&M. Unfortunately they just didn't have a back loaded schedule at all. Beat 3 decent teams in USC, Navy and Pitt. But I think ND looked a lot better than Bama for a majority of the season. Bama had the better singular win against Georgia. I'd put Tennessee and Mizzou on the same level as Pitt and Navy. But even with Bama beating UGA, they then got absolutely dominated later and then the FSU loss. I think they were close enough to be able to say ND just looked like the better team.

It could work... but I'm not sure how they could be certain that they're weighting travel distances accurately. We wouldnt want to all of a sudden give teams a huge advantage for scheduling long-distance road games against mid teams lol. And i feel like NET and the metrics are already convoluted to the point where people don't trust them- and adding another complicated layer would probably only make that worse. Not that appeasing people should be the main goal of metrics but u know what i mean...

I actually like that solution a lot. Road wins are already perceived better by the metrics, why not tie in some distance component. For example, take Houston playing NC St. or Texas. Obviously never 1 to 1 but considering both are 11 seeds, it's a similar comparison. Houston should be rewarded more for beating NC St. than they would for beating Texas due to distance components

ACC Scheduling ⬇️ UNC and Louisville had to play the West Coast teams on the road, while UVA got to play both at home UNC & Louisville: 1-3 Virginia: 2-0 These 3 were making it regardless, but the ACC scheduling only some West Coast trips definitely played a role in seeding

@BuckeyeDore Yeah the only other solution would be to somehow incorporate travel distance into the metrics so that not all home / road games are equal. But that sounds like a nightmare that would only be more controversial 😂

The issue is that there isn’t an easy workaround here. Just from a scheduling perspective, some teams will get screwed over some years. I think they alternate so it’s fair in the long run, but obviously not on an annual basis. The obvious solution is getting rid of Pacific coast teams in Atlantic or Midwest conferences, but that’s never going to happen now

That's fair! I personally was very unimpressed with BYU all season and don't think they would have faired any better at all against IU. Notre Dame is valid though. It's just hard to compare a team who went 0-2 vs playoff-caliber competition to a team who went 2-2 plus a bad loss. Like do you take the team who proved they CAN beat elite teams but could also lose to a bad one? Or the team who hasn't proven either of those things? Its obv a tough call. Also, I think it's worth noting that they didn't punish SMU last year for losing their champ game!

@APlusBrackets Yes. They belonged in. But Alabama with a bad loss to FSU, a loss to Oklahoma at home and getting your teeth kicked in by Georgia pretty much sealed their fate in my eyes. But the committee apparently only doesn't punish SEC championship participants.

@XavierHarkness That's an interesting take! Did you think Oklahoma shouldve been in?

@APlusBrackets Would have put in Notre Dame or BYU. Probably Notre Dame.

@XavierHarkness Oh? I didn't realize there were people thinking Alabama should have been out. Who did you think should've been in instead?

@APlusBrackets We all knew it. They just shouldn't have been. Didn't bother me though. Gave Indiana a pretty easy win.

@XavierHarkness Thats true! Although nobody was really debating whether they should have been in, that was kind of a given.

@APlusBrackets Except they put in a 3 loss Alabama team in the CFP this season... We seen what happened there.

@MiniHoopsAlert I agree that I think they should've been in regardless... although I wouldn't say "comfortably"... but I also don't hate the logic that a team who goes 0-5 against at-large tournament teams doesn't belong in. That was definitely a rough look for them

There’s something unbelievably wrong with the system. VCU should’ve been comfortably in the field. Yet, with a loss on a neutral court to a good Dayton team, they would’ve been left out. It’s just ridiculous

@kerrancejames Also Nebraska who had an argument for a 3 seed, but instead got a 4 AND placed in a pod with a 5 seed who ALSO had an argument for a 3 lol

Just finished my annual Who Got Screwed article. It was tougher than usual this year, but always a few spots that jump out. Vanderbilt and Illinois the big one, IMO.

@sportsdailymed Mizzou getting a pod in St. Louis 👀

🚨NCAA TOURNAMENT FIELD 🚨 The NCAA Tournament Field it out! What matchup is the most interesting? #bracketology #ncaatournament #sportsdailymedianetwork

@FizBracketology Yeah I kinda assumed I wouldn't do too well this year anyways. Just wanted to see where my mistakes were!

@APlusBrackets As a fellow first-time bracketologist, I fell into the same trap re: metrics, so I had Auburn in as well. Looking forward to next season!

Looks like I went: 67/68 on the field 49/68 correctly seeded 66/68 correctly seeded within 1 line (WTF with Vanderbilt!?) Honestly not that sure how good that is- but not too worried about that anyways. Had a lot of fun in my first year trying this and will look to improve next year!

@XavierHarkness Sorry if i gave that impression- SOS was not a factor in my decision! My only reason for having Auburn in was that last year the committee selected the field strictly by metrics and I thought this year would be the same. I was wrong though and you were right! Good work!

@APlusBrackets Nope. I think you just got blinded by SOS and became hardheaded on the issue.

@XavierHarkness Do you think I'm an Auburn fan?

@APlusBrackets You could have had 68/68 but you got biased on Auburn and everyone told ya, they weren't getting in.

@KieferMedia I mean getting the matchup against a Texas Tech team whose best player is hurt is probably the best outcome they couldve hoped for. Feels like Akron is one of the biggest winners of the day

@APlusBrackets For matchups. Texas Tech will probably exploit their perimeter defense that we saw Toledo tear up last night.

My biggest takeaways - Kentucky is losing round one - USF may open as a betting favorite vs Louisville - Don’t like that the A10 was only getting two teams in regardless of who won today - Troy is the perfect mismatch for Nebraska - Akron gets screwed every single year