throwback

East seeds of note: 10 UCLA 11 Arkansas 12 South Dak St 13 Buffalo Midwest seeds of note (will go to Omaha for Sweet 16): 10 TCU 11 Mid Tenn St 12 Loyola-Chi 6 Wichita 5 Rh Island 7 Seton Hall 8 Alabama 9 Fla St No Huskers - no surprise - we still have work to do Encouraging that the B1G received some nice seeds though. That hopefully bodes well for us when the real field comes out in a month. Last year, this early unveiling correctly predicted 15 of the top 16 seeds. No mention of last 4 in, etc. Rasmussen says one of the biggest factors for the committee this year will be wins away from home

Other teams IN - as Jerry Palm projected the rest of the field, based off the NCAA's top 16 seeds South seeds of note: Mich as an 8 K-State/USC in a play-in game on 12 line L-ville as an 11 Providence as a 10 West seeds of note: Texas/NC State as 12 line play in game Creigh as 6 Washington 11 Houston 10

9 Clemson (in Omaha) 10 Texas Tech 11 Michigan St 12 N Carolina 13 Tennessee 14 Ohio St 15 Arizona 16 Oklahoma (in Omaha) So the matchups South - Virginia, Cincy, Mich St, Tenn East - Nova, Duke, Tex Tech, Ohio St Midwest - Xavier, Auburn, Clemson, Okla West - Purdue, Kansas, UNC, Ariz 3 B1G teams in the top 16 ACC - 4 BE - 2 Big XII - 3 SEC - 2 Pac 12 - 1 AAC - 1

#1 overall Virginia 2 Villanova 3 Xavier (in Omaha region) 4 Purdue 5 Auburn (in Omaha) 6 Kansas 7 Duke 8 Cincinnati Lots of losses among those top 8 the past week, especially in the top 4 - Virginia & Villanova both had bad home losses this week & Purdue lost twice Xavier nearly lost too yesterday - but they didn't Going to be a lot of unhappy scalpers if KU doesn't end up in Omaha

NCAA selection committee releasing the top 16 seeds - as they stand now - on CBS Will be interesting to see how they treat the B1G

Great to hear - thanks for the update - really proud of the way he's steadily getting better and better. It's easy to tell how hard he worked in the off season and how much that's paying off now. And now I'm going to have to check out HopCat.

Also worth noting - I know Roby played some at the 4 today by being on the floor at the same time as Duby/Jordy, but our "5" position had 20 pts, 17 reb,, 6 blocks & just 2 turnovers in 47 min. Apply a factor to that to reduce it back to 40 minutes, and you're still looking at 17 pts, 14.5 reb & 5 blocks. Not bad.

And I want to say Rutgers made at least 3 offensive rebound layups after air balls, maybe 4 - that's just dumb luck, so our defensive numbers could've looked a lot better if RU's outside shooters could learn to draw iron more consistently. Then again, if you shoot a lot of air balls, the offensive rebounders are used to it, so they have the advantage. Probably see more of that on the trip to Illinois next weekend, as I seem to recall them also scoring a few times off their own air balls during the game in Lincoln.. If Coach needs someone to come to practice this week and fire up some air balls so we can practice rebounding them, I'll be waiting for a call. Hopefully Palmer is OK after getting poked in the eye - he certainly wasn't the same after that play, although I thought RU did a nice job of taking away his right hand drive today, as well as anyone has all season. And hopefully Roby's OK - I think he smashed his fingers on that ill-fated lob pass late in the game that hit the rim - he was shaking his hand for a couple of minutes after that. Loved the way he took charge today.

NU 82 Turtles 72

Didn't CBS try the 2-hour show 2-3 years ago, and someone leaked the bracket onto the Internet before it was over? Hopefully they don't draw out the selections over the entire 2 hours.

I think the thing to remember here - and someone probably wrote this already several pages back - is that each bracket guy has his/her own criteria. Some base it on if the tourney started today. Some are projecting to what may happen at the end of the season. Some are going solely off projected RPI/KenPom/etc. Some try to figure in conference tournament results/some don't. Some are using their guts/eye tests. In most of these criteria, we aren't going to be successful with them. Our numbers now aren't good enough. And I believe most of our projections still have us at only 21 wins max, which isn't going to be good enough. The only brackets we're going to be in right now are those that use a bit of eye test/gut feeling, who actually look at our schedule & how well we've been playing and say, I think those guys can get to 22/23/24+ wins - so many wins that the committee can't ignore it. And who knows how many bracket projections use the eye test. So I'm not all that worried about how many brackets we're in right now. If we keep winning, they'll have to put is in eventually. (That doesn't mean I don't like reading about it, so please keep the updates coming, as I'm far too lazy to look at it myself.)

I feel like I'm supposed to write something about Craig Smith next here, but I just can't quite remember what ..... Winning will do that to the brain, I suppose.

NU 75 RU 50

Was thinking the same thing last night Pretty solidly officiated game, other than the last 3 minutes of the first half when they realized we only had 2-3 fouls and had to get Minny to the bonus in a hurry .... which, now that I think of it, also has happened to us countless times in the past few years.

Just a little perspective before we all go back to hitting refresh at Bracket Matrix every 5 minutes, because sometimes it can be tough to enjoy the ride when you’re a bubble team. And we still have at least 6 games to go – this team is doing some special things ... with more to come. In the past 20 years… MOST WINS 20 – 07-08 20 – 98-99 19 – 13-14 19 – 10-11 19 – 05-06 18 – 17-18 18 – 08-09 18 – 03-04 MOST CONF WINS (regular season) 11 – 13-14 10 – 98-99 9 – 17-18 8 – 08-09 7 – (5 times) (Only have hit double digits in conf wins 6 times since winning 13 in the MVC in 24-25 - I think Lunardi had us in the last 4 out that year, what a jerk) (Modern record is 12 conf wins in 65-66) HIGHEST CONF FINISH 4th – (9-4) – 17-18 4th – (11-7) – 13-14 5th – (10-6) – 98-99 6th – (7-9) – 05-06 7th – (7-9) – 10-11 7th – (7-9) – 07-08 7th – (6-10) – 06-07 7th – (6-10) – 01-02 7th – (7-9) – 00-01 MOST CONF ROAD WINS 4 – 17-18 4 – 98-99 3 – 16-17 3 – 15-16 3 – 13-14 3 – 08-09 3 – 05-06 3 – 04-05 3 – 00-01 (I went back a ways & can't find another season with more than 4 conference road wins - 90-91 won 8 true road games, but only 3 in conference - of course we only played 7 conference road games for a long time in the past) FEWEST LOSSES 8 – 17-18 13 – (6 times) (Only 4 times since 78-79 have we lost 10 or fewer games) SCORING AVERAGE 74.0 – 17-18 72.2 – 15-16 71.1 – 00-01 70.5 – 03-04 69.8 – 01-02 (Highest scoring average since 95-96) 90+ POINT GAMES 4 – 17-18 3 – 15-16 3 – 04-05 2 – 09-10 2 – 05-06 2 – 98-99 (Most since 95-96 - tough to catch that team's 10 games at 90+) Enjoy what the team has accomplished for a few minutes. Then back to worrying about the bubble, whether Joe Lunardi will give us some respect, and whether Northwestern & Michigan can sneak into Tier 1.

Road to 20 23 regular season wins 5 Must Wins Wisconsin - WIN Illinois - WIN Iowa - WIN Rutgers Indiana Split These 6 at Rutgers - WIN at Wisconsin - WIN at Minnesota - WIN at Illinois Penn St Maryland Just Get 1 at Penn St at Ohio St Michigan - WIN

Ha - that didn't last. Illinois went on its typical huge scoring drought like it does every game -- and then some. Illinois didn't score the final 10+ minutes of the half and gave up a 19-0 run - OSU by 4 at half. Neither team playing all that well, OSU has 10+ turnovers, but Illinois does that to teams. They're good at mucking it up on the defensive end, not so good at scoring. Can't remember the last time I saw a 10+ minute scoring drought ... and they'll get to continue it into the second half.

Ohio St has suspended Kam Williams indefinitely for team rules violation. Man, the number of key players injured/suspended in the B1G this year has been unreal. (And now I'll be spending the next hour knocking on every piece of wood I can find in a 2-mile radius.) The Bucknuts are stinking it up at home vs Illinois through 12+ minutes, down double digits.

I agree, we just need to finish the regular season strong, get to the B1G semis, and we'll be fine. Even if we finish at 0 in that formula, it's a tougher path, but far from impossible. I'm sure finishing the season strong (not necessarily 6-0, but strong) & going 2-0 vs Michigan would be more than enough to overcome a 0 in the formula. But our numbers aren't occurring in a vacuum - it matters how the other bubble teams stack up around us. If there's 10-12 bubble teams at +1 or better with higher RPIs than NU has, we're probably in trouble. If there's 5-7 bubble teams at +1 or better, our chances go way up. Going to be interesting to see how they treat the B1G in terms of seeding too, as the B1G's RPI is a mess. Purdue has a 7 RPI this morning, but they're a sure-fire #1 seed I'd think MSU has a 21 RPI & OSU has a 20, but they both have to be a Top 4 seeds, don't they? MIchigan at 31 RPI, but probably at least 6 seed right now So if they're giving those teams the benefit of the doubt in RPI (ie, higher seed line than their RPI would suggest), I would expect the committee to do that with the other teams in the league as well, which benefits NU.

Big wins have always counted more than bad losses - they're just putting a "face" to it with tiers this season. I went back and looked at the last 4 years comparing the last 8 NCAA at-large teams vs the first 8 NIT seeds - the bubble teams. The most obvious difference I could find was this formula: (Top 50 RPI wins minus 101+ RPI losses) 2017 If you were +3 in the formula, you made the NCAA (4 teams), including RPI 56 & 61 teams At +2, 2 were NCAA teams (Okla St, RPI 40 & 3 Top 50 wins and KSU RPI 57 & 4 Top 50 wins)/3 were NIT (Cal, RPI 53 & 2 Top 50 wins, while Clemson & Iowa each had 4+ Top 50 wins but had RPIs of 68 & 81) At +1 USC (RPI 41) and VCU (RPI 22) made NCAA with 2 & 3 Top 50 wins each. Syracuse was an NIT team at RPI 84 but had 6 Top 50 wins At 0 or negative, all four teams were in the NIT, including an RPI 33 team So not sure if that shows a definitive anything, but teams with the highest numbers in the formula made it most of the time (always understanding that there will be an outlier or two). RPI seemed more of a tie-breaker among teams in the middle of the list. I can post more details if anyone wants, but the numbers were pretty similar on 2 of the other 3 years. 2016: 5 teams were at +1 or better, 4 made NCAA; only one of the six teams that was -1 or worse made NCAA and that was an RPI 63 with only 2 Top 50 wins (definite outlier) 2015: Odd season, as there weren't many great numbers among at-large teams. Of those -1 or better, 6 made NCAA, 5 made NIT. However, in that group, only 5 of the 11 were Power 5 teams, so a bunch of smaller schools on the bubble, which probably threw off the numbers a bit. Of the 5 Power 5 teams in that list at -1 or better, 4 made the NCAA. There was one significant outlier in 2015, Georgia had 0 Top 50 wins, was -2 in the formula, but made NCAA with a 38 RPI. 2014: 7 of the 10 teams that were +1 made NCAA. BYU also made it at -1, with a 31 RPI. Of the 3 teams that were +1 that ended up in the NIT, they had RPIs of 53, 54, and 63. (For comparison that year, NU was RPI 48 with 4 Top 50 wins and a +1 in the formula.) Certainly, a lot of this depends on what the other bubble teams do. In 2014, 10 of the bubble teams were +1 or better and 12 were at +1 or better in 2016, but only 5 of them in 2016 were +1 or better and only 4 of them in 2015. Bubble teams at +1 or better 2017: 8 of 12 in the NCAA (67%) 2016: 4 of 5 in NCAA (80%) - [also at 0 or better, 7 of 10 were in NCAA (70%)] 2015: 2 of 4 in NCAA (50%) - [also at -1 or better, 6 of 11 were in NCAA (55%)] 2014: 7 of 10 in NCAA (70%) TOTAL: 21 of 31 in NCAA (68%) Also interesting with this formula: 2017: Marquette led the bubble teams at +5 and made NCAA with 61 RPI (4 bubble teams with better RPIs were NIT teams) 2016: Michigan led the bubble teams at +4 and made NCAA with 57 RPI (6 bubble teams with better RPIs were NIT teams) 2015: Texas led the bubble teams at +3 and made NCAA with 42 RPI (2 bubble teams with better RPIs were NIT teams) 2014: Iowa led the bubble teams at +3 and made NCAA with 56 RPI (4 bubble teams with better RPIs were NIT teams) And on the other end of the spectrum 2017: Houston & Ill St were at the bottom of the list among bubble teams at -1 or worse, both were NIT but had RPIs of 33 & 54 (3 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 54; 7 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 33) 2016: Valpo was at the bottom with -3 and was in NIT with RPI of 49 (6 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 49) 2015: Old Dominion was at the bottom with -4 and was in NIT with RPI of 46 (2 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 46) 2014: Georgia was at the bottom with -3 and was in NIT with RPI of 74 (0 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 74) Who knows whether the selection committee will look at this differently with the tiers publicly in play this season. But based on recent history, if you can be in plus territory on the Top 50 wins versus sub-100 losses formula, you're usually on the right side of the bubble. That doesn't mean you can't make it at 0 or worse, as there also seems to be an outlier every year, and some years there aren't many bubble teams in the +1 or better category, but making the NCAA becomes that much tougher if you're at 0 or worse in that formula ... at least in the past few years.

If they wanted to take the eye test out of it, they certainly could. With NCAA Hockey, the tournament at-large team selections and all seeding is done by a formula called PairWise. The only thing the committee does is move teams around on their seed lines to put them as close to home as possible to drive attendance at regionals or to avoid first-round games between teams from the same conference. But if the formula says you're a #2 seed, you have to stay a #2 seed; the committee cannot move you off that seed line. For basketball, the NCAA obviously feels like the eye test matters. Numbers don't always tell the whole story ... which is exactly what's going on with NU. We look like an NCAA Tournament team right now. But to make up for the numbers that aren't in our favor, some of which were accumulated during the early part of the season when we were still finding our way and some of which are caused by an unusual below-average showing from the B1G, we can't afford a lapse down the stretch. Keep winning and looking the way we have for the past few weeks, and we'll make it, because the eye test matters. If it was just a numbers game, we'd probably be screwed. But it isn't.

Michigan played terrible but hangs on by 3 - if they had lost this one, they would deserve to be banned from the NCAA Tournament - had a 5-pt lead in regulation & shooting FTs with 20 seconds left and somehow let Minny get it to OT - I think Michigan missed 5 billion FTs in the game total Mich really gave Minny problems with a 2-3 zone in the 2nd half & scored a bunch at the rim once they got Murphy in foul trouble. Good recipe for us to follow Tuesday. Even when Murphy was in foul trouble, Minny kept switching everything, and he ended up on small guards several times, picked up his 5th foul trying to prevent a drive from a small guard. With as many dumb fouls as he picks up on offense, they need to try to protect him better on the defensive end. Coffey did not play again today for the Rodents, questionable for Tuesday

Final 10 min of NU game and first 6 min of NW game, Wisky was outscored 48-9 ... at home. I realize they've had some injuries, but that roster is just bad right now. Will be interesting to see whether UW considers a coaching change - Gard has had some success, but not sure how Alvarez feels about him, since Ryan's mid-season retirement a few years back kind of forced Gard on Alvarez. If Alvarez wants to make his own hire, this season's results give him the perfect opportunity.

I'm afraid we broke Wisconsin. We've had a habit of doing that to teams this season.

NU 68 UM 66