NIT Bracketology: The Indiana State Question

Our NIT Bracketology is updated to account for yesterday’s games, and at long last, we don’t have to worry about the effects of our model not considering conference tiebreakers.

We’re going to talk a lot about the lower NIT bubble below, in Model Talk, but like everyone else in the bracketology world, we’re going to start by talking about Indiana State. Specifically, we’re going to talk about what we think will happen, not what we think should happen. (Our view is that WAB should be the basis for all the committee’s decisions, with only small adjustments made from that starting point. This would result in Indiana State making the NCAA Tournament field.)

Our model is still reacting to Indiana State’s loss yesterday. Its simulations last night didn’t account for the reactions of NET, KPI, or SOR, all of which correlate with the committee’s eventual decision. Tonight’s simulations will account for those updates, and we’ll get a better view. Overall, though, we have some bullish indicators on the Sycamores:

First, our model’s first glance does have the Sycamores more than 50% likely to make the NCAA Tournament field. We have them at 59.0%.

Second, DJ Bauer’s bracketology (DJ is one of the top bracketologists in the industry in terms of track record) currently has the Sycamores in the Last Four In, and if I understand his ordering correctly, they’re the fourth-to-last team in.

Third, Joe Lunardi’s bracketology has Indiana State in the same place. Lunardi isn’t the most accurate prognosticator in the industry, but his work remains solid and he likely plays at least a small role in establishing the conversation, given how many games this week are going to be on the ESPN family of networks and how much the committee will be watching those games. I do think the narrative matters with bracketology, although I fear that the immediate stumping from so many in college basketball media might, paradoxically, lead committee members to believe that maybe Indiana State doesn’t obviously deserve a bid. (The possible subconscious logic: If this is so obvious, why are they arguing?)

Fourth, our model punishes teams for Q1 win percentages below .250, and Indiana State’s is .200. With some bubble teams, we see a possibly significant metric that our model doesn’t include. With Indiana State, we’re confident our model accounts for the primary criticism.

Fifth, Indiana State was missing a starter (Jayson Kent) for the loss to SIU, a five-point road loss in which Julian Larry fouled out, making depth matter more than it always does. Should injuries be considered by the committee? That’s a subjective question, but for better or worse, they’re supposed to be considered. That’s part of why there’s still a committee, even with metrics as strong as they now are.

Sixth, those bracketologies above already have two bid thieves included, even post-Drake. They all have a bid thief in the A-10 and the AAC, because Dayton and FAU didn’t win those regular season titles.

A few bearish indicators:

First, Bart Torvik’s TourneyCast™ has Indiana State’s bid probability at 30.9%. Bart’s been doing this longer than us, and he takes it at least as seriously as we do, and we doubt we’re any smarter than he is, all of which are things which make us trust TourneyCast slightly more than our own projections when it comes to the NCAAT/NIT bubble.

Second, Indiana State’s combined Q1/Q2 win percentage is .500, which is only slightly above our model’s .450 cutoff. Not every .500 record against Q1/Q2 opponents is the same. Is Indiana State’s similar enough to those bubble teams whose .450+ record in that space led that to be a variable in our model? I’m not sure. The lone Q1 win came against Bradley, who’s not an NIT lock. The Q2 wins came against Drake, Bradley, Northern Iowa, and Belmont, who aren’t NIT locks. If we were using eight octants instead of four quadrants, Indiana State’s record in O1 and O3 would be worse than it is in Q1 and Q2.

Third, those “as things stand” bracketologies don’t account for the likelihood of at least some bubble teams putting together strong weeks. Someone will win the Seton Hall/St. John’s game. Villanova will likely get a chance against a shorthanded Marquette. Texas A&M plays Mississippi. Pitt and Wake Forest will most likely play one another. We love predictive bracketology (as opposed to “as things stand”) because it accounts for all of this, and it might help Indiana State that the committee often makes decisions before conference tournaments are complete, but this is a tough dynamic for Terre Haute.

Plenty more to come. In the meantime, here’s our model’s best projection of Sunday’s NIT bracket, with no Indiana State to be found:

Last Four In, First Four Out, Etc.

On the low side:

  • Last Four In (from the cut line going upwards): Duquesne, San Francisco, VCU, NC State
  • First Four Out (from the cut line going downwards): Florida State, Minnesota, Cornell, Yale
  • Others in the mix (>10% NIT chance, below NIT field, not in our field or in the First Four Out): Xavier, Maryland, Minnesota, Penn State, Georgia, George Mason, UMass

On the high side:

  • Last Four In (from the cut line going downwards): St. John’s, Villanova, New Mexico, Wake Forest
  • First Four Out (from the cut line going upwards): TCU, Mississippi State, Indiana State, Seton Hall
  • Others in the mix (>10% NIT chance, above NIT field, not in our field or in the First Four Out): Virginia, Colorado State, Saint Mary’s

As always, we account for bid thieves by looking at the median cut lines in our model’s simulations. Today, those remain 45th and 83rd, meaning if there was a master seed list covering both tournaments, the 45th overall seed would be the last NCAAT at-large and the 83rd seed would be the last NIT at-large. We do have the issue happening again where there are 33 NIT teams in those spots between 45th and 83rd, which is causing Florida State to be cut out despite being the 83rd team on our list. This will resolve itself by Sunday, either through LSU climbing above the lower cut line, Texas A&M dipping below the upper one, the cut line returning to 82nd, one of Xavier and Maryland pulling off two conference tournament wins and managing a .500 finish, or any other of a number of possible development.

Conference Tournament Favorites (Reverse Bid Thieves)

Given where those cut lines stand and how many teams sit between them, we don’t have any reverse bid thieves today. All conference tournament favorites who sit in NIT at-large territory are, in today’s bracketology, not in the NIT. More likely than not, this isn’t what happens, but our cut line is 83 and NC State is the 82nd team on our seed list, so there’s a good chance that whatever reverse bid thieves do happen are canceled out by current projected NIT at-larges playing their way into the NCAAT as automatic bids. For example: If we get JMU or McNeese, we might lose South Florida or Richmond.

The five conference tournament favorites in NIT at-large bid territory if they lose:

  • Princeton
  • Grand Canyon
  • James Madison
  • McNeese
  • Samford

Please note: This isn’t a guarantee that the team in question will make the NIT with a loss. Samford is especially bubbly if they lose. But they’re all more than 50% likely to make the NIT in the event they don’t make the NCAA Tournament.

Model Talk: The Lower Bubble

John Templon published an updated bracket last night, and here are the lower bubble teams on whom we disagree:

TeamThe Barking CrowJohn Templon
Florida StateOUTIN
Boston CollegeOUTIN
MinnesotaOUTIN
VCUINOUT
LSUAUTOIN

Notably, John has Richmond and South Florida both in the NCAAT in his projection, meaning he’s using 84th as the cut line while our bracketology today is using 82nd. With our model’s median projected cut line at 83rd and Florida State our model’s 83rd team, what this signifies to me is that we don’t significantly disagree about Florida State, if we disagree at all. With Minnesota our next team out behind Florida State, we don’t significantly disagree about Minnesota either. Our most significant disagreements are VCU (where we appear to disagree by six spots), Boston College (where we disagree by at least six), and LSU (where we disagree by at least three).

John is not currently including expected conference tournament results in his bracket. Our model is. Still, our model’s median simulation has VCU going only 1–1 in the A-10 Tournament, so this disagreement isn’t coming from there.

My best guess as to what’s going on with VCU is that it comes from KPI. Our model incorporates KPI directly and heavily (it’s 23% of the projection) while John’s approach is, if I understand correctly, looking at the résumé more conventionally. VCU is 1–4 in Q1 games. It has four combined losses across Q3 and Q4. KPI? It has VCU’s as the 60th-best résumé in the country, pulling the Rams upwards in our model’s projection.

We include KPI for a reason, and that reason is that our formula tracks very well with NIT selection decisions over the last two years. But I see where John’s coming from with VCU. It’s not just NET. Their SOR is ranked 100th and they don’t have many strong calling cards.

Our model does have Boston College narrowly likelier to beat Miami than lose to Miami, using kenpom to set that line. So, I’m not sure future results are to blame for the Boston College disagreement either. Boston College doesn’t have any Q4 losses, and its only Q3 losses came against Florida State and NC State, two respectable teams in the NIT world. Our model’s approach dismisses nuance for a reason when it comes to the NIT (the NIT selection meeting is a lot shorter than the NCAAT one), but we see the case for BC. That said, we only have the Eagles 6.3% likely to make the NIT cut, and a 1–1 ACC Tournament performance should only raise that number to something like ten percent. We expect our model to be wrong about one in ten cases at that number, so this might be one of the ten, but we’re afraid that with NET, kenpom, SOR, and KPI rankings all north of 90, Boston College won’t get the detailed look it needs.

Our model adores Texas A&M’s team sheet, so if it’s right about that, LSU will probably get the automatic bid and this will take care of itself. If not, the wins over Kentucky (H), South Carolina (A), Texas A&M (A), and Wake Forest (N) might be enough to get the Tigers over the cut line. That’s a pretty good bag of chips to bring to a nuance party, and we do have LSU close enough to the cut line that they’re likelier than others to receive that nuance.

In short! We think John’s a good guy and a smart guy and you should read his stuff. We’re skeptical of his take on Boston College, but we get where he comes from, and we expect to miss a few teams he hits on (and vice versa). We’re skeptical of KPI’s take on VCU, and we’re curious whether KPI is something the NIT committee looks at directly. Was it 2018 when the NIT committee stuck *so* closely to KPI? 2019? Or is that a phantom memory?

The Graveyard

Before we get to today’s archive, we wanted to talk about who’s losing what because of the change in the automatic bid rules. We think it’s important to track the real impact of the changes, or at least our closest estimate of that impact. So:

  • Losing an automatic bid (teams who would have made it in last year’s format): High Point, Eastern Washington, Little Rock, Eastern Kentucky, Central Connecticut State
  • Gaining a bid (teams we think are receiving those bids instead): Duquesne, San Francisco, VCU, NC State, Appalachian State
  • Losing a home game (teams who would have been seeded and had the option to host last year): Memphis, Butler, Kansas State
  • Gaining a home game (the teams picking up home games as replacements): Washington, Mississippi, LSU

Not all non-power conference teams are created equal. We believe strongly in the high-major/mid-major/low-major dichotomy (as opposed to calling teams only power conference schools and mid-majors). In total, then, what we have is this:

  • Five NIT spots shifting away from low-majors. Four of those go to mid-majors. One goes to a high-major.
  • One NIT home game shifting away from a mid-major (Memphis, one of the highest mid-majors in terms of brand power). This goes to a high-major.

For the Archives

TeamConferenceMake NCAA TournamentWin NCAA TournamentMake NITWin NIT
BradleyMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%99.7%1.2%
UCFBig 120.6%0.0%98.8%2.1%
MississippiSEC1.5%0.0%98.4%0.8%
ButlerBig East3.0%0.0%97.0%2.5%
SyracuseACC5.3%0.0%94.8%0.6%
OregonPac-125.3%0.0%94.6%1.2%
Virginia TechACC6.0%0.0%94.0%3.0%
WashingtonPac-123.0%0.0%93.2%2.0%
PittACC9.2%0.0%90.8%6.7%
Appalachian StateSun Belt0.0%0.0%90.8%0.4%
Kansas StateBig 129.3%0.0%90.8%1.1%
IowaBig Ten10.0%0.0%90.0%3.7%
RichmondAtlantic 1011.2%0.0%88.8%0.6%
CincinnatiBig 1213.3%0.0%86.7%6.5%
Ohio StateBig Ten13.4%0.0%86.6%5.0%
UtahPac-1214.2%0.0%85.8%3.8%
MemphisAmerican14.4%0.0%85.6%1.0%
ProvidenceBig East14.5%0.0%85.5%1.6%
Loyola (IL)Atlantic 109.4%0.0%84.9%0.4%
IndianaBig Ten2.4%0.0%84.8%0.3%
South FloridaAmerican15.6%0.0%83.3%0.4%
UNLVMountain West9.8%0.0%81.2%0.5%
SMUAmerican16.0%0.0%70.6%0.7%
LSUSEC0.1%0.0%68.2%0.5%
NC StateACC0.7%0.0%67.8%0.4%
New MexicoMountain West37.7%0.1%62.3%6.4%
Wake ForestACC41.2%0.2%58.8%7.5%
VillanovaBig East41.6%0.1%58.4%6.8%
St. John’sBig East44.4%0.2%55.6%5.6%
TCUBig 1249.9%0.1%50.1%5.4%
VCUAtlantic 107.0%0.0%49.0%0.2%
PrincetonIvy League52.9%0.0%47.1%1.8%
Mississippi StateSEC57.4%0.2%42.6%3.4%
San FranciscoWCC10.0%0.0%41.3%0.3%
Indiana StateMissouri Valley59.0%0.1%41.0%4.3%
XavierBig East0.9%0.0%39.3%1.2%
Florida StateACC0.7%0.0%35.1%0.3%
DuquesneAtlantic 104.7%0.0%32.3%0.1%
MarylandBig Ten0.9%0.0%31.2%0.8%
James MadisonSun Belt70.4%0.0%29.6%0.4%
VirginiaACC72.3%0.0%27.7%0.8%
Grand CanyonWAC72.6%0.1%27.4%0.6%
Seton HallBig East74.8%0.0%25.2%0.7%
MinnesotaBig Ten0.4%0.0%25.2%0.2%
Penn StateBig Ten0.6%0.0%24.0%0.3%
GeorgiaSEC0.2%0.0%23.8%0.1%
George MasonAtlantic 105.1%0.0%18.7%0.1%
McNeeseSouthland81.1%0.0%18.3%0.2%
SamfordSoCon75.4%0.0%18.3%0.1%
UMassAtlantic 1010.9%0.0%17.8%0.1%
Colorado StateMountain West82.8%0.2%17.2%1.8%
Saint Mary’sWCC83.8%0.4%16.2%2.1%
CornellIvy League19.2%0.0%10.9%0.0%
ArkansasSEC0.1%0.0%8.3%0.1%
YaleIvy League24.7%0.0%7.3%0.0%
Boston CollegeACC0.3%0.0%6.3%0.1%
OklahomaBig 1294.2%0.1%5.8%0.5%
St. BonaventureAtlantic 106.1%0.0%4.9%0.0%
UC IrvineBig West61.1%0.0%4.4%0.0%
ColoradoPac-1295.8%0.2%4.2%0.4%
Texas A&MSEC96.5%0.1%3.5%0.2%
RutgersBig Ten0.1%0.0%3.2%0.0%
Miami (FL)ACC0.3%0.0%2.7%0.0%
Michigan StateBig Ten97.5%0.5%2.5%0.4%
USCPac-121.1%0.0%2.2%0.0%
North TexasAmerican7.9%0.0%2.0%0.0%
UABAmerican5.7%0.0%1.5%0.0%
College of CharlestonCAA37.9%0.0%1.3%0.0%
Saint Joseph’sAtlantic 103.6%0.0%1.0%0.0%
Florida AtlanticAmerican99.1%0.2%1.0%0.1%
NorthwesternBig Ten99.5%0.2%0.5%0.0%
Oklahoma StateBig 120.0%0.0%0.4%0.0%
VermontAmerica East66.3%0.0%0.1%0.0%
Georgia TechACC0.1%0.0%0.1%0.0%
CharlotteAmerican4.9%0.0%0.1%0.0%
StanfordPac-120.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
FloridaSEC100.0%0.4%0.0%0.0%
Washington StatePac-12100.0%0.1%0.0%0.0%
CalPac-120.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
GeorgetownBig East0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
HoustonBig 12100.0%19.3%0.0%0.0%
UConnBig East100.0%15.0%0.0%0.0%
PurdueBig Ten100.0%11.2%0.0%0.0%
TennesseeSEC100.0%6.8%0.0%0.0%
AuburnSEC100.0%6.8%0.0%0.0%
ArizonaPac-12100.0%6.3%0.0%0.0%
North CarolinaACC100.0%4.2%0.0%0.0%
DukeACC100.0%4.1%0.0%0.0%
CreightonBig East100.0%3.0%0.0%0.0%
Iowa StateBig 12100.0%2.5%0.0%0.0%
MarquetteBig East100.0%2.4%0.0%0.0%
IllinoisBig Ten100.0%2.4%0.0%0.0%
AlabamaSEC100.0%2.2%0.0%0.0%
BaylorBig 12100.0%2.2%0.0%0.0%
GonzagaWCC100.0%1.3%0.0%0.0%
KentuckySEC100.0%1.2%0.0%0.0%
KansasBig 12100.0%1.1%0.0%0.0%
BYUBig 12100.0%0.9%0.0%0.0%
San Diego StateMountain West100.0%0.6%0.0%0.0%
Texas TechBig 12100.0%0.4%0.0%0.0%
ClemsonACC100.0%0.4%0.0%0.0%
TexasBig 12100.0%0.4%0.0%0.0%
WisconsinBig Ten100.0%0.4%0.0%0.0%
NevadaMountain West100.0%0.3%0.0%0.0%
NebraskaBig Ten100.0%0.3%0.0%0.0%
DaytonAtlantic 10100.0%0.3%0.0%0.0%
Boise StateMountain West100.0%0.2%0.0%0.0%
Utah StateMountain West100.0%0.1%0.0%0.0%
South CarolinaSEC100.0%0.1%0.0%0.0%
DrakeMissouri Valley100.0%0.1%0.0%0.0%
HofstraCAA34.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
AkronMAC31.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Morehead StateOhio Valley100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
StetsonASUN100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LongwoodBig South100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
ColgatePatriot League79.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MerrimackNEC78.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
South Dakota StateSummit League73.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Louisiana TechConference USA43.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
OaklandHorizon League41.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Weber StateBig Sky34.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Norfolk StateMEAC32.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Arkansas StateSun Belt29.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
North Carolina CentralMEAC28.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MontanaBig Sky27.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Northern KentuckyHorizon League24.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%
East Tennessee StateSoCon24.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
ToledoMAC24.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
FairfieldMAAC23.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
SouthernSWAC22.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
WagnerNEC21.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UMass LowellAmerica East20.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LehighPatriot League20.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
OhioMAC20.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
QuinnipiacMAAC18.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cleveland StateHorizon League18.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Texas SouthernSWAC18.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LibertyConference USA16.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
TowsonCAA16.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Alcorn StateSWAC15.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MilwaukeeHorizon League15.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Idaho StateBig Sky15.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
HowardMEAC15.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
OmahaSummit League14.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Grambling StateSWAC14.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Western KentuckyConference USA14.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UC DavisBig West14.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MaristMAAC13.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Saint Peter’sMAAC13.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Sam Houston StateConference USA13.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
DenverSummit League12.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Texas A&M-Corpus ChristiSouthland11.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Stony BrookCAA11.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UT ArlingtonWAC11.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
South Carolina StateMEAC10.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Jackson StateSWAC10.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
RiderMAAC9.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Montana StateBig Sky9.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%
BryantAmerica East9.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
HawaiiBig West9.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Kent StateMAC9.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
IonaMAAC8.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
SeattleWAC8.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Delaware StateMEAC8.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Alabama StateSWAC7.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Portland StateBig Sky7.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Bethune-CookmanSWAC7.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Long Beach StateBig West6.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Bowling Green StateMAC6.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Sacramento StateBig Sky5.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Mount St. Mary’sMAAC5.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
NiagaraMAAC5.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UTEPConference USA5.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Santa ClaraWCC4.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LamarSouthland4.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Jacksonville StateConference USA4.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Alabama A&MSWAC4.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Miami (OH)MAC3.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Central MichiganMAC3.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Stephen F. AustinWAC3.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
New HampshireAmerica East3.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UC Santa BarbaraBig West3.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
BrownIvy League3.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Morgan StateMEAC3.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
NichollsSouthland2.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Utah ValleyWAC2.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
CanisiusMAAC2.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UC RiversideBig West2.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
DavidsonAtlantic 101.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cal State NorthridgeBig West1.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Western MichiganMAC1.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cal State BakersfieldBig West1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UCLAPac-121.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Middle TennesseeConference USA1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Maryland Eastern ShoreMEAC1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
New Mexico StateConference USA1.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
California BaptistWAC1.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
TulaneAmerican0.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Abilene ChristianWAC0.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%
TulsaAmerican0.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Wichita StateAmerican0.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%
East CarolinaAmerican0.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
FIUConference USA0.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Arizona StatePac-120.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Coppin StateMEAC0.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
WyomingMountain West0.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
La SalleAtlantic 100.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Rhode IslandAtlantic 100.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Saint LouisAtlantic 100.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
FordhamAtlantic 100.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Oregon StatePac-120.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
ManhattanMAAC0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
TempleAmerican0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Notre DameACC0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
New OrleansSouthland0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
RiceAmerican0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MichiganBig Ten0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UTSAAmerican0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MissouriSEC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LouisvilleACC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
SienaMAAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Fresno StateMountain West0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
San Jose StateMountain West0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UNC AshevilleBig South0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Austin PeayASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Eastern WashingtonBig Sky0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
ChattanoogaSoCon0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UNC WilmingtonCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
DrexelCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
FurmanSoCon0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Northern ColoradoBig Sky0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Boston UniversityPatriot League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
North DakotaSummit League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
BucknellPatriot League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
DelawareCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Texas StateSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MonmouthCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
North Dakota StateSummit League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Southeastern LouisianaSouthland0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Northwestern StateSouthland0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Air ForceMountain West0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
High PointBig South0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Central Connecticut StateNEC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Little RockOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Western CarolinaSoCon0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UNC GreensboroSoCon0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Kansas CitySummit League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
TroySun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Gardner-WebbBig South0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Northern IowaMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LouisianaSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
WoffordSoCon0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Arkansas-Pine BluffSWAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MaineAmerica East0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MercerSoCon0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Oral RobertsSummit League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
BinghamtonAmerica East0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
AlbanyAmerica East0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Northern ArizonaBig Sky0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
NortheasternCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
MarshallSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UMBCAmerica East0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
South DakotaSummit League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
IdahoBig Sky0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Georgia SouthernSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
CampbellCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cal State FullertonBig West0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
San DiegoWCC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
George WashingtonAtlantic 100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
William & MaryCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
West VirginiaBig 120.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
HamptonCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UT MartinOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Western IllinoisOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
WinthropBig South0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
BelmontMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
RadfordBig South0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
PresbyterianBig South0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Missouri StateMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UICMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Charleston SouthernBig South0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Ball StateMAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
EvansvilleMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
The CitadelSoCon0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Loyola MarymountWCC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
PepperdineWCC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
ElonCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
VanderbiltSEC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Youngstown StateHorizon League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Wright StateHorizon League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
North AlabamaASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Purdue Fort WayneHorizon League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Sacred HeartNEC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
JacksonvilleASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Green BayHorizon League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
AmericanPatriot League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LafayettePatriot League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Southern IllinoisMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Tennessee StateOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
SIU EdwardsvilleOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Murray StateMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Fairleigh DickinsonNEC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
NavyPatriot League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Georgia StateSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
South AlabamaSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Illinois StateMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Southern MissSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LIUNEC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Eastern IllinoisOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
USC UpstateBig South0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Holy CrossPatriot League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Saint FrancisNEC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Coastal CarolinaSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
ValparaisoMissouri Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
PortlandWCC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Houston ChristianSouthland0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Eastern KentuckyASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LipscombASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
North FloridaASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
ArmyPatriot League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Robert MorrisHorizon League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Old DominionSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Louisiana MonroeSun Belt0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Loyola (MD)Patriot League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Incarnate WordSouthland0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Florida Gulf CoastASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Kennesaw StateASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
HarvardIvy League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Tennessee TechOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
ColumbiaIvy League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Prairie View A&MSWAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
StonehillNEC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
North Carolina A&TCAA0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
VMISoCon0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Central ArkansasASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Eastern MichiganMAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Detroit MercyHorizon League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Southern UtahWAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
TarletonWAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
NJITAmerica East0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Le MoyneNEC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
PennIvy League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
BellarmineASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
QueensASUN0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
DePaulBig East0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UC San DiegoBig West0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cal PolyBig West0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
IUPUIHorizon League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Chicago StateIndependent0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
DartmouthIvy League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
BuffaloMAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Northern IllinoisMAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
LindenwoodOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Southern IndianaOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Southeast Missouri StateOhio Valley0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Texas A&M-CommerceSouthland0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
St. ThomasSummit League0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Florida A&MSWAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Mississippi Valley StateSWAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Utah TechWAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
UT Rio Grande ValleyWAC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
PacificWCC0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
The Barking Crow's resident numbers man. Was asked to do NIT Bracketology in 2018 and never looked back. Fields inquiries on Twitter: @joestunardi.
Posts created 3304

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.