Anonymous Resumes: Which Bubble Teams Are Most Deserving of 2023 NCAA Tournament Bid?

Championship week in men's college basketball means the time has finally come for America's favorite game of deceptively partial information: Anonymous NCAA tournament resumes.

In theory, the selection committee tries to compare team resumes without any sort of bias.

That is, of course, impossible and impractical, because if you've watched as much basketball as these committee members have, all it takes is a quick glance at the list of opponents faced to know whose resume it is.

But we actually can strip away the names and talk almost exclusively in metrics to compare two teams in anonymity.

On these resumes, you'll find the following acronyms/abbreviations:

NET: NCAA Evaluation Tool. This is the primary sorting metric by which quadrant records are determined. Generally speaking, a team's NET isn't as important as the NET of its opponents, but it still matters.

RES: Resume or result-based metrics. This is the average of Kevin Pauga Index and strength of record. The lower the number, the better.

QUAL: Quality or predictive metrics. This is the average of KenPom, Sagarin and BPI. Margin of victory is a huge factor here, and, again, the lower the number, the better. As a bracketology rule of thumb, RES is much more important when it comes to deciding if a team belongs in the field, while QUAL starts to play a factor in where teams should be seeded.

SOS/NCSOS: Strength of schedule/nonconference strength of schedule. For the most part, this is not important as a standalone data point, as schedule strength is kind of baked into the numbers. But a team with a top-10 schedule might get some benefit of the doubt, while a team that's 300th or worse in NCSOS might get penalized for that lack of effort.

Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4: The quads. Back in the day, we used to just talk about records against top 50, top 100, etc., but they changed up the team sheets a few years ago to more adequately account for where the games were played. Quadrant 1 consists of home games against the NET top 30, neutral-site games against the NET top 50 and road games against the NET top 75.

Q2 is home vs. 31-75, neutral vs. 51-100 and road vs. 76-135. Q3 is home vs. 76-160, neutral vs. 101-200 and road vs. 136-240. And Q4 is everything else. But don't worry about those actual numbers. Just know that Q1 wins are good and Q4 losses are bad. (Q1A is the top half of Quad 1, or home vs. 1-15, neutral vs. 1-25 and road vs. 1-40. Those are extra nice to have.)

With those glossary notes out of the way, let's dive into the muck.

---

Anonymous Resume Comparison No. 1

Samuel Lewis/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

Team A: 18-13, NET: 42, RES: 58.0, QUAL: 37.0, SOS: 44, NCSOS: 308, 2-5 vs. Q1A, 9-10 vs. Q1/Q2, three Q3 losses, zero Q4 losses

Team B: 21-10, NET: 53, RES: 51.0, QUAL: 40.3, SOS: 67, NCSOS: 292, 3-5 vs. Q1A, 6-9 vs. Q1/Q2, one Q3 loss, zero Q4 losses

Aside from the fact that both reside smack dab on the bubble, the common denominator between these two major conference teams is a complete lack of effort in the nonconference scheduling department. We've certainly seen worse, even on this year's bubble. (Here's looking at you, Clemson and Texas Tech.) But 308 and 292 are some hideous NCSOS ranks.

Curiously enough, both teams did play Miami away from home, and both lost. Team B also played a road game against TCU (and lost). But they combined for 13 nonconference home wins against Quad 4, which might as well not even count. And if we take away those games, Team A is at 12-13 overall while Team B drops to 14-10.

In addition to the deplorable nonconference strengths of schedule, both teams are outside the top 50 in the result-based metrics, which is not where you want to be.

Looking back at 2019 and 2022—as far as COVID-affected seasons are concerned, the only somewhat normal years since the switch from RPI to NET—the only team to earn an at-large bid with an average RES ranking of greater than 52 was Rutgers last season at 57.5. And that team had five high-quality wins, including the famous run of four consecutive victories over AP Top 25 opponents in February.

These teams, uh, didn't do that.

Team A did have a fantastic road win over a possible No. 1 seed, and Team B did win three home games against surefire single-digit seeds. But these teams have combined for as many Quad 1A wins as the Scarlet Knights had last season.

Now that we've established they're both bubble-y resumes, which mystery team is on firmer ground?

The overall records and the volume of losses outside the top two quads certainly point in the direction of Team B.

But here's a fun data point that doesn't show up on the team sheets: Team A is 8-7 (with four true road wins) against our projected field, while Team B is just 3-7 (with zero wins away from home) against the field.

That does mean Team A has six losses outside the field compared to just three for Team B, and there's no question that Team A's bad losses were worse than Team B's bad losses. (Both in quantity and in quality. Team B's Q3 loss is right on the Q2/Q3 border, while one of Team A's Q3 losses is right on the Q3/Q4 border.)

However, would the selection committee rather take an inconsistent Rutgers (Team A) with a stockpile of solid wins, or a consistently mediocre Providence (Team B) which needed double overtime in two of its only three wins worth mentioning?

My hunch is the Friars have the slight edge, but this selection committee seemed to be laser-focused on road/neutral wins during the Top 16 reveal, which would not bode well for the Big East squad in this comparison.

While Rutgers won at Purdue, Northwestern, Penn State and Wisconsin, Providence's best accomplishments outside The Dunk were road wins over Seton Hall, Villanova, Butler and DePaul.

---

Anonymous Resume Comparison No. 2

Rich Schultz/Getty Images

Team C: 19-12, NET: 56, RES: 45.0, QUAL: 50.3, 2-3 vs. Q1A, 5-6 vs. Q1, 9-11 vs. Q1/Q2, 4-1 vs. Q3, 6-0 vs. Q4, SOS: 33, NCSOS: 276

Team D: 21-10, NET: 57, RES: 54.0, QUAL: 61.0, 1-2 vs. Q1A, 4-4 vs. Q1, 7-8 vs. Q1/Q2, 4-1 vs. Q3, 10-1 vs. Q4, SOS: 91, NCSOS: 147

There's virtually no difference in the NET here. And while Team C has the worse record, it played the tougher schedule (33 vs. 91) and boasts about a 10-unit edge in both the RES and QUAL metrics.

These teams are close, and not just geographically, as you'll see shortly.

What jumps off the page here is Team D's 10-1 record against Quad 4, both because of the bad loss and because of the sheer volume of games played against that subset of teams. A double-digit number in the Quad 4 wins column is usually reserved for mid-majors, but these are both major-conference squads.

We will point out that five of those games (including the loss) were in conference play. (Spoiler Alert: Team D is from the ACC.) So, even if you want to play the "remove the nonconference home contests against Quad 4" game here, it makes no difference because each team has six of those.

Whether in league play or not, though, the Quad 4 loss (vs. NET No. 219) sticks out like a sore thumb. Team D's Quad 3 loss (at NET No. 184) was also much worse than Team C's Quad 3 loss (vs. NET No. 78).

But because Pittsburgh (Team D) spent a good chunk of the season in a position to possibly win the ACC, it seems to be getting a free pass for metrics that are—across the board—worse than those of Penn State (Team C).

Pitt's bad losses were at home to Florida State and on the road against Notre Dame. The Panthers did sweep North Carolina, won road games against Northwestern and NC State and won home games against Virginia and Miami, but the overall resume is just not great, ranked 50th or worse in all six metrics.

And while conference record/standing isn't supposed to matter, now that the Panthers lost the season finale and dropped from No. 1 to the No. 5 seed in the ACC tournament, the selection committee might be more willing to pass them by.

Meanwhile, Penn State also has a road win over Northwestern, has the much more impressive sweep (Illinois), won a total of nine games against the NET top 90 compared to Pitt's six—top 90 is a totally arbitrary cutoff, but aren't they all?—and has not suffered a loss outside the NET top 100.

Penn State came on strong late, getting two of its five Quad 1 wins in March. Meanwhile, Pitt really stubbed its toe in that March 1 loss to Notre Dame.

Ten days ago, this wouldn't have been a debate. Pitt was multiple seed lines ahead of Penn State. And while we try to not overreact to individual outcomes late in the season (especially in conference tournaments), perhaps we didn't react enough here.

Because if you'd done no bracket projections all season and were coming at this debate with no pre-formed thoughts on either team, you would almost certainly give the edge to the Big Ten team from Northern Pennsylvania over the ACC one from Western Pennsylvania.

---

Anonymous Resume Comparison No. 3

AP Photo/Chuck Burton

Team F: 22-9, NET: 61, RES: 58.5, QUAL: 57.7, 0-1 vs. Q1A, 4-3 vs. Q1, 7-5 vs. Q1/Q2, 15-4 vs. Q3/Q4, SOS: 107, NCSOS: 333

Team G: 20-10, NET: 50, RES: 60.0, QUAL: 69.0, 2-3 vs. Q1A, 3-4 vs. Q1, 6-6 vs. Q1/Q2, 14-4 vs. Q3/Q4, SOS: 82, NCSOS: 217

We'll keep this one brief, because this is a showdown between teams somewhere in that "Next Four Out" range. But it's worth bringing up these teams, because either one could make things a little interesting with a nice run in its conference tournament.

From a bird's-eye view, the clear "yuck" factor is both teams having four bad losses. But let's make this a much tougher sell for Team F to win by pointing out just how bad its bad losses are. All of Team G's Q3/Q4 losses were against teams in the NET top 175. Team F lost to NET Nos. 229, 270 and 315.

Yikes.

Moreover, Team G's two Quad 1A wins (at NET No. 10; at NET No. 16) are much, much stronger than anything Team F has done. Team F did possess a Quad 1A win 24 hours ago, but all hail the fickle NET. What was NET No. 40 slipped Tuesday night to NET No. 41, devaluing that somewhat great win for Team F.

And yet, there are people who still have Clemson (Team F) listed among their First Four Out, while New Mexico (Team G) seems to have been completely forgotten by the bracketology community.

Both squads have been sinking like a lead balloon after going a combined 37-7 through late January, so it might not matter. But New Mexico's road wins over Saint Mary's and San Diego State still hold a lot of value.

Just warning you: If there's a 2012 Iona or a 2016 Tulsa type of team that's going to sneak into the field to the bewilderment of bracketologists, it's probably New Mexico.

---

Anonymous Resume Comparison No. 4

Erica Denhoff/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

Team J: 23-7, NET: 21, RES: 28.0, QUAL: 38.3, 0-3 vs. Q1A, 1-4 vs. Q1, 8-1 vs. Q2, 13-0 vs. Q3, 22-5 vs. Q1/Q2/Q3, 1-2 vs. Q4, SOS: 81, NCSOS: 195

Team K: 17-13, NET: 78, RES: 47.5, QUAL: 64.3, 2-6 vs. Q1A, 6-7 vs. Q1, 5-5 vs. Q2, 1-1 vs. Q3, 12-13 vs. Q1/Q2/Q3, 5-0 vs. Q4, SOS: 13, NCSOS: 70

Polar opposites, eh?

If you take the average of all six metrics, Team J is at 32.0, while Team K is at 61.0.

Team K has six Quad 1 wins, but Team J won just one of its five chances against that group.

Team J has a winning percentage of 81.5 against the top three Quads while Team K is one game below .500.

Team K has no losses outside the NET top 100, but Team J has two losses against Quad 4.

Which things matter most to this year's selection committee?

From a metrics perspective, Team J missing the cut would be unheard of. We previously noted that between the 2019 and 2022 dances, Rutgers in the latter year had the worst RES ranking (57.5) to earn an at-large bid. But let's further note that between those two years, the best RES ranking to miss the cut was VCU at 39.5 last year. Can't omit a team sitting at 28, right?

But from a quality wins perspective, leaving out Team K would also be a major deviation from the norm. Between 2019 and 2022, the only team to win at least six Quad 1 games and miss the dance was Indiana in 2019—and the Hoosiers simply stockpiled too many losses, going 8-15 overall against Quads 1 and 2.

These divergent resumes are both right on the bubble, though, so it might boil down to the committee making a decision between Utah State (Team J) and Wisconsin (Team K).

We can probably all agree—well, all except for the fans of teams like Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, North Carolina, etc.—that we would rather see a highly-rated mid-major get the nod over some major conference team that got a few nice wins while racking up 13 or more losses.

And here's a fun kicker: This was all written and the resume data points captured before Wisconsin's loss to Ohio State in the Big Ten tournament. Utah State was probably already on better footing, but now the Badgers are even further behind the eight ball.

But what sort of message would it send to put Utah State in the field?

The Aggies not only went 0-3 in Quad 1A games but also lost each of those games by double digits. They also had those terrible losses to Weber State and SMU. Sure, they looked great in going 13-0 against Quad 3 by a combined margin of 159 points. But suffering two Quad 4 losses, beating no marquee opponents and juicing the numbers by beating up on teams in the NET 100-150 range just feels wrong.

We'll see what happens, though. Selection Sunday is rapidly approaching, but there's still time to improve (or ruin) most of these resumes and cases for bids.

---

All data current through start of play Wednesday.

Kerry Miller covers men's college basketball and Major League Baseball for Bleacher Report. You can follow him on Twitter: @KerranceJames