That's what I thought which is comical because they lost lol.
Bracketology
25,151 Views |
208 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Cal88
Yeah but while we had a easy OOC schedule some of these teams like SDSU got crushed by the two good teams they played and also lost to a bad team in Troy at home. Then to follow this they lose in their own conference with much easier games than us. I look at teams like Tulsa and I don't understand the methodology at all. They don't have a single good win and they have some bad losses. I see a lot of triple digits when I check their schedule.
We on the other hand do not have a single bad loss as our worst are all top 100 teams on the road. We also have 4 quad 1 wins and half of these teams have 0. Regardless 10-15 Providence should not be above us in any ranking.
We on the other hand do not have a single bad loss as our worst are all top 100 teams on the road. We also have 4 quad 1 wins and half of these teams have 0. Regardless 10-15 Providence should not be above us in any ranking.
I don't think UW is a bubble team. They are 13-13 and don't have the resume metrics to make the tournament.
Here are the 32 teams that cleared the bar to be under consideration. We don’t yet know who will wind up getting an auto bids from this group because they yet to play in their conference tournaments as of this moment. (Will change soon.) pic.twitter.com/5JvrWiYZQr
— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) February 19, 2026
Some interesting omissions here, like VA Tech
Seems as though we're firmly under consideration at this point
This is from a mock committee exercise today
Yeah I just saw this!! Good to see us in the discussion!
Cal88 said:bearfan93 said:
3-1 on what we were hoping for.
Mizzou wins, u$c gets blasted, OSU loses to KU and WV loses to a bad Utah team.
all in all, pretty good results.
don't think there are any games of note on the schedule for today.
We went up from 61 to 60 in the NET, I think because WV dropped below us.
USC and UW are B1G bubble teams (7-8 and 5-10 in conf. respectively) who are easy to root against, they have to play UCLA twice, hope UCLA sweeps. UW has a good NE but at 5-10 in conference, an upset or two vs Rutgers, Maryland or BDW Oregon would help there...
Oregon is at the bottom of the B1G at 2-13, I guess uncle Phil is not into hoops...
To go back to our OOC schedule: I think the risk-reward profile for an ACC team with a new roster that needs to gel and is more vulnerable to a bad loss early in the season favors the choice of a soft early schedule. This being said we could have used a couple more Q3s or lower Q2s instead of teams near the bottom of Q4 or even below Q4, say Oregon St or Pepperdine instead of Wright St and Dominican.
Wright State (NET 139) is well ahead of both Oregon State (183) and Pepperdine (275)
What do the colored text mean?
ManBearLion123 said:Here are the 32 teams that cleared the bar to be under consideration. We don’t yet know who will wind up getting an auto bids from this group because they yet to play in their conference tournaments as of this moment. (Will change soon.) pic.twitter.com/5JvrWiYZQr
— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) February 19, 2026
Some interesting omissions here, like VA Tech
Seems as though we're firmly under consideration at this point
This is from a mock committee exercise today
ManBearLion123 said:Here are the 32 teams that cleared the bar to be under consideration. We don’t yet know who will wind up getting an auto bids from this group because they yet to play in their conference tournaments as of this moment. (Will change soon.) pic.twitter.com/5JvrWiYZQr
— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) February 19, 2026
Some interesting omissions here, like VA Tech
Seems as though we're firmly under consideration at this point
This is from a mock committee exercise today
If you had told me 2 years ago, that we would be in the same group as Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio St, Texas, UCLA and Villanova for consideration...
I would be very pleased (and incredulous).
The bad news here is that we weren't considered to be among the first 4 out in this exercise.
Last four in, from best to worst: Georgia, Miami OH, Missouri, Santa Clara
— Evan Miyakawa (@EvanMiya) February 19, 2026
First teams out, in alphabetical order (since we didn't rank them): New Mexico, Ohio State, San Diego State, TCU, UCLA https://t.co/Hp4PrZFBUd
I think this is media mock draft just to learn process and not committee
ManBearLion123 said:
The bad news here is that we weren't considered to be among the first 4 out in this exercise.Last four in, from best to worst: Georgia, Miami OH, Missouri, Santa Clara
— Evan Miyakawa (@EvanMiya) February 19, 2026
First teams out, in alphabetical order (since we didn't rank them): New Mexico, Ohio State, San Diego State, TCU, UCLA https://t.co/Hp4PrZFBUd
We definitely have some ground to make up. My question on these exercises is: "Is this based on the current records and NET ranking, or is it based on the predicted records and NET rankings for the complete season on Selection Sunday? Because where we sit right now at 6-7 and 8th or 9th in the ACC is not where we expect to end up, even if we just win the games we are favored in. Moreover, we have guys like Camden and Bell that are out of their earlier conference shooting slums and if we get Dort back we will be markedly better than the team that lost those 8 games.
calumnus said:ManBearLion123 said:
The bad news here is that we weren't considered to be among the first 4 out in this exercise.Last four in, from best to worst: Georgia, Miami OH, Missouri, Santa Clara
— Evan Miyakawa (@EvanMiya) February 19, 2026
First teams out, in alphabetical order (since we didn't rank them): New Mexico, Ohio State, San Diego State, TCU, UCLA https://t.co/Hp4PrZFBUd
We definitely have some ground to make up. My question on these exercises is: "Is this based on the current records and NET ranking, or is it based on the predicted records and NET rankings for the complete season on Selection Sunday? Because where we sit right now at 6-7 and 8th or 9th in the ACC is not where we expect to end up, even if we just win the games we are favored in. Moreover, we have guys like Camden and Bell that are out of their earlier conference shooting slums and if we get Dort back we will be markedly better than the team that lost those 8 games.
This is certainly just based on current records/metrics. I agree that if we win 5 more (even if 1 of those wins comes in the ACC tourney), we'll be in good shape.
HoopDreams said:
I think this is media mock draft just to learn process and not committee
It is, but it's interesting to see this play out all the same. The media members were given guidelines on how the selection committee will judge teams.
It isn't it is also based on future projections. Right now it has Miami OH in as an 11 seed at large team with Akron winning the conference. I think having some of these teams like SDSU and TCU etc. ahead of us is just ridiculous though considering people love to merge quad 1 and quad 2 for those discussions when most of those teams don't have more than 1 Q1 win so really they are morphing Q2s into Q1s.
Onebearofpower said:
It isn't it is also based on future projections. Right now it has Miami OH in as an 11 seed at large team with Akron winning the conference. I think having some of these teams like SDSU and TCU etc. ahead of us is just ridiculous though considering people love to merge quad 1 and quad 2 for those discussions when most of those teams don't have more than 1 Q1 win so really they are morphing Q2s into Q1s.
I think they just threw in the hypothetical of Miami OH losing on a bad call in the conference tourney final as their only loss for the purpose of doing a thought exercise to see where they'd be seeded (if they made the tourney) should that happen.
For the other teams in the field and under consideration, they seem to have just looked at their current resumes.
calumnus said:ManBearLion123 said:
The bad news here is that we weren't considered to be among the first 4 out in this exercise.Last four in, from best to worst: Georgia, Miami OH, Missouri, Santa Clara
— Evan Miyakawa (@EvanMiya) February 19, 2026
First teams out, in alphabetical order (since we didn't rank them): New Mexico, Ohio State, San Diego State, TCU, UCLA https://t.co/Hp4PrZFBUd
We definitely have some ground to make up. My question on these exercises is: "Is this based on the current records and NET ranking, or is it based on the predicted records and NET rankings for the complete season on Selection Sunday? Because where we sit right now at 6-7 and 8th or 9th in the ACC is not where we expect to end up, even if we just win the games we are favored in. Moreover, we have guys like Camden and Bell that are out of their earlier conference shooting slums and if we get Dort back we will be markedly better than the team that lost those 8 games.
The problem is that we are favored to win those games because the remaining schedule is weak which will hurt us. I know that everyone is thinking 5 wins will do it. Maybe, but maybe not. It would be close. I don't think our NET would go up much.
I said weeks ago that our nonconference schedule was stupid and could cost us a tourney slot. There is a very real possibility that will occur. Had Cal replaced its bottom 5 games with teams ranked 50 points higher, Cal's NET ranking, KenPom ranking, and every algorithm wouldn't be weighing us down like an anchor.
If we win 5 and don't get in, people here will be going off on the selection committee when the real problem is one we can control.
if we win 5 we will get in. I just don't know that we will win 5. Furd and SMU will be extremely tough. Pitt could potentially be overlooked in classic Cal fashion. Wake is rising fast and we'll be tired and vulnerable, and we didn't look great vs GTech and now expect to beat them there? Winning 5 is going to be like winning at 5 game parlay, imo. It will be a miracle, and if it happens, we are in.BearlyCareAnymore said:calumnus said:ManBearLion123 said:
The bad news here is that we weren't considered to be among the first 4 out in this exercise.Last four in, from best to worst: Georgia, Miami OH, Missouri, Santa Clara
— Evan Miyakawa (@EvanMiya) February 19, 2026
First teams out, in alphabetical order (since we didn't rank them): New Mexico, Ohio State, San Diego State, TCU, UCLA https://t.co/Hp4PrZFBUd
We definitely have some ground to make up. My question on these exercises is: "Is this based on the current records and NET ranking, or is it based on the predicted records and NET rankings for the complete season on Selection Sunday? Because where we sit right now at 6-7 and 8th or 9th in the ACC is not where we expect to end up, even if we just win the games we are favored in. Moreover, we have guys like Camden and Bell that are out of their earlier conference shooting slums and if we get Dort back we will be markedly better than the team that lost those 8 games.
The problem is that we are favored to win those games because the remaining schedule is weak which will hurt us. I know that everyone is thinking 5 wins will do it. Maybe, but maybe not. It would be close. I don't think our NET would go up much.
I said weeks ago that our nonconference schedule was stupid and could cost us a tourney slot. There is a very real possibility that will occur. Had Cal replaced its bottom 5 games with teams ranked 50 points higher, Cal's NET ranking, KenPom ranking, and every algorithm wouldn't be weighing us down like an anchor.
If we win 5 and don't get in, people here will be going off on the selection committee when the real problem is one we can control.
BearlyCareAnymore said:calumnus said:ManBearLion123 said:
The bad news here is that we weren't considered to be among the first 4 out in this exercise.Last four in, from best to worst: Georgia, Miami OH, Missouri, Santa Clara
— Evan Miyakawa (@EvanMiya) February 19, 2026
First teams out, in alphabetical order (since we didn't rank them): New Mexico, Ohio State, San Diego State, TCU, UCLA https://t.co/Hp4PrZFBUd
We definitely have some ground to make up. My question on these exercises is: "Is this based on the current records and NET ranking, or is it based on the predicted records and NET rankings for the complete season on Selection Sunday? Because where we sit right now at 6-7 and 8th or 9th in the ACC is not where we expect to end up, even if we just win the games we are favored in. Moreover, we have guys like Camden and Bell that are out of their earlier conference shooting slums and if we get Dort back we will be markedly better than the team that lost those 8 games.
The problem is that we are favored to win those games because the remaining schedule is weak which will hurt us. I know that everyone is thinking 5 wins will do it. Maybe, but maybe not. It would be close. I don't think our NET would go up much.
I said weeks ago that our nonconference schedule was stupid and could cost us a tourney slot. There is a very real possibility that will occur. Had Cal replaced its bottom 5 games with teams ranked 50 points higher, Cal's NET ranking, KenPom ranking, and every algorithm wouldn't be weighing us down like an anchor.
If we win 5 and don't get in, people here will be going off on the selection committee when the real problem is one we can control.
The remaining schedule is relatively "weak" but it's not like our non-con at all. Wake is a Q1 game and SMU is a tourney team. If the teams above us don't go on a rampage, I feel pretty confident they will look past the predicative stats and see 12-8 in a strong 8 bid league with five Q1 wins.
Onebearofpower said:
I don't think UW is a bubble team. They are 13-13 and don't have the resume metrics to make the tournament.
They're #50 NET right now, perhaps another quirk of that rating system, but I figured at #50 they can still win their way in with 5 games remaining.
BearlyCareAnymore said:calumnus said:ManBearLion123 said:
The bad news here is that we weren't considered to be among the first 4 out in this exercise.Last four in, from best to worst: Georgia, Miami OH, Missouri, Santa Clara
— Evan Miyakawa (@EvanMiya) February 19, 2026
First teams out, in alphabetical order (since we didn't rank them): New Mexico, Ohio State, San Diego State, TCU, UCLA https://t.co/Hp4PrZFBUd
We definitely have some ground to make up. My question on these exercises is: "Is this based on the current records and NET ranking, or is it based on the predicted records and NET rankings for the complete season on Selection Sunday? Because where we sit right now at 6-7 and 8th or 9th in the ACC is not where we expect to end up, even if we just win the games we are favored in. Moreover, we have guys like Camden and Bell that are out of their earlier conference shooting slums and if we get Dort back we will be markedly better than the team that lost those 8 games.
The problem is that we are favored to win those games because the remaining schedule is weak which will hurt us. I know that everyone is thinking 5 wins will do it. Maybe, but maybe not. It would be close. I don't think our NET would go up much.
I said weeks ago that our nonconference schedule was stupid and could cost us a tourney slot. There is a very real possibility that will occur. Had Cal replaced its bottom 5 games with teams ranked 50 points higher, Cal's NET ranking, KenPom ranking, and every algorithm wouldn't be weighing us down like an anchor.
If we win 5 and don't get in, people here will be going off on the selection committee when the real problem is one we can control.
The poor OOC schedule is an anchor. But historically the committee has favored teams with some good wins and no bad losses. I think Cal may need win out, but as much as winning the Stanford, SMU and Wake games they simply cannot lose to Pitt or GaTech. Those would be late season quad 3 losses and likely deal killers with the committee. Those 2 teams are at the bottom of the league and in jeopardy of not even qualifying for the ACC tourney. Those are games that cannot be lost.
Get 5 more and I will take our chances. Especially if those are the next 5. That would be a 6 game win streak to close the regular season. That would get them in the 8-9 game (ACC Tourney) at a minimum and another quad 1 opportunity
But Cal may need some help as well. So the late games for the other bubble teams will be worth keeping an eye on. But Cal needs to win for any of that matter.
IMO if Cal had scheduled a harder OOC schedule we would have more losses right now and be in roughly the same position. It was a calculated gamble that the ACC schedule would still give us a good chance, and it has. Just need to take advantage of it.
The aspect you are missing here is that we have had an enormous amount of turnover, a patched together team would be more vulnerable early in the season.
Cal88 said:
The aspect you are missing here is that we have had an enormous amount of turnover, a patched together team would be more vulnerable early in the season.
Not missing at all, I think that was part of the reason for that scheduling.
sycasey said:Cal88 said:
The aspect you are missing here is that we have had an enormous amount of turnover, a patched together team would be more vulnerable early in the season.
Not missing at all, I think that was part of the reason for that scheduling.
And some just dumb luck. What if Utah wasn't horrible. What if Kstate in February was playing like KState in November. UCLA is cratering and that would have been a good win.
There were some games in retrospect it woudl have been nice to get "upgraded" but remember in some cases we are PAYING them for the game - and you don't know the budget MM was (or wasn't) working with. This AD is cheap but convinces fans we live on caviar diets.
Take care of your Chicken
sycasey said:
IMO if Cal had scheduled a harder OOC schedule we would have more losses right now and be in roughly the same position. It was a calculated gamble that the ACC schedule would still give us a good chance, and it has. Just need to take advantage of it.
Using Kenpom rankings
If Cal had played #277 Brown instead of Cal State Bakersfield
and #230 Abilene Christian instead of Presbyterian
and #210 Drake instead of Sac State
and #229 San Jose State instead of Northwestern State
and #303 Little Rock instead of Morgan State
and #365 Miss Valley State instead of Dominican
do you think we would have more losses now?
I'm not saying those exact teams - I just took the worst 6 teams on our schedule and replaced them with the team 50 points higher, except for Dominican which I replaced with the worst team in America.
The best team on that list is ranked 115 places lower than our worst loss.
You risk extremely little by understanding how the algorithms work and not scheduling teams in the 300's or high 200's. When you have 6 games on the schedule like that, you might as well put 2 losses on your team because that is what it is doing to you. I've never said to replace those games with challenging games. I would definitely schedule teams in the 200-250 range and give my team the chance to win it on the floor because if they are bubble quality team they will win those games. If they lose them, oh well. It was in their hands.
If Cal wins 5 games, they deserve to be in. I've said this since back when football used the algorithms as part of the selection metrics for the playoffs. The algorithms should be a tool for humans to use in the calculation, but they should not be overly weighted for precisely this reason. If one bubble team plays against #300 and another plays against #250, the second wins the algorithm. But that is stupid. They both would have won against either team.
Cal has no truly bad losses. They don't have awesome wins, but they have a few good ones. If you look at their best win and their worst loss, and the range in between, I think they are more competitive in at least the first round of the tourney than many teams ahead of them by any of the algorithms. But the algorithms are there and they are used. And think about from the selection committee's perspective. If you have one team that is 10-15 points higher in NET and Kenpom than another, and you choose the lower ranked team, you are going to get roasted for it. If you are Cal right now and you say you should get in over SDSU, (and honestly, I think there is a reasonable argument for that) and you complain when you don't get selected over them, everyone is going to say "Um, you are ranked 25 places lower in KenPom. What are you talking about." and laugh at you.
Which brings me to another point. Just because someone in the last four in loses doesn't mean we are poised to pass them. Right now we are ranked way behind those teams. It is like thinking if you are in 5th place and the 4th place team loses you are in 4th now without factoring in that the 4th place team was 5 games ahead of you.
People think that a certain record "gets you in" because in their experience that record has gotten teams they know in. But that is because most teams with those records don't play such a weak schedule.
And you can't rely on the ACC portion of the schedule because guess what? All of the power conference teams you compete with play a power conference schedule.
I've never said play tough games. I am all in favor of playing the same number of cupcakes and decent teams that Cal played this year. It's the brand of cupcakes that is the problem. I'm not saying play $20 dollar cupcakes from the local bougie bakery. I'm saying play hostess, not off brand cupcakes that are in the clearance bin at Grocery Outlet because they passed the expiration date. There is never an excuse for playing a team ranked #353 out of 365.
If they focus more on delving deep into the schedules, Cal will get in. If they look more at the rankings, we are in trouble.
BearlyCareAnymore said:sycasey said:
IMO if Cal had scheduled a harder OOC schedule we would have more losses right now and be in roughly the same position. It was a calculated gamble that the ACC schedule would still give us a good chance, and it has. Just need to take advantage of it.
Using Kenpom rankings
If Cal had played #277 Brown instead of Cal State Bakersfield
and #230 Abilene Christian instead of Presbyterian
and #210 Drake instead of Sac State
and #229 San Jose State instead of Northwestern State
and #303 Little Rock instead of Morgan State
and #365 Miss Valley State instead of Dominican
do you think we would have more losses now?
You know, maybe. If you have a poor game against one of those you are more likely to take a loss. Could be one more loss on our record if we'd played that slightly tougher slate.
Also I'm not sure how easy it is to predict who will be bad and who will be less bad from teams in that range. Maybe it's easier than I think.
I just want to point out that 2 west coast teams were replaced with just 1. I don't think people get that it takes 2 to tango and those teams get PAID to play in games. So really you want to be talking about Riverside, Bakersfield, Long Beach, St., Marys', Santa Clara, SDSU (that ALWAYS goes well). Some of those are going to demand a home and home. Others more $$$.
Could our schedule have been a BIT better? Probably. But really the better analysis would be to take those random teams not THIS year but 2 years ago and compare. MM is not god. He can not PREDICT how sucky (or good) teams are. And remember - Cal has a THREE GAME losing streak against the Mighty UCSD Tritons.
Could our schedule have been a BIT better? Probably. But really the better analysis would be to take those random teams not THIS year but 2 years ago and compare. MM is not god. He can not PREDICT how sucky (or good) teams are. And remember - Cal has a THREE GAME losing streak against the Mighty UCSD Tritons.
Take care of your Chicken
Yeah that is why I am saying it is flawed. There is no way that UW makes the tourney yet somehow they are 50th. The system is mindboggling because they don't fall when they lose. They would need to win the Big Ten to make the tourney. They cant make AL at 18-13
We won the last game against the Tritons lol.
BearlyCareAnymore said:sycasey said:
IMO if Cal had scheduled a harder OOC schedule we would have more losses right now and be in roughly the same position. It was a calculated gamble that the ACC schedule would still give us a good chance, and it has. Just need to take advantage of it.
Using Kenpom rankings
If Cal had played #277 Brown instead of Cal State Bakersfield
and #230 Abilene Christian instead of Presbyterian
and #210 Drake instead of Sac State
and #229 San Jose State instead of Northwestern State
and #303 Little Rock instead of Morgan State
and #365 Miss Valley State instead of Dominican
do you think we would have more losses now?
I'm not saying those exact teams - I just took the worst 6 teams on our schedule and replaced them with the team 50 points higher, except for Dominican which I replaced with the worst team in America.
The best team on that list is ranked 115 places lower than our worst loss.
You risk extremely little by understanding how the algorithms work and not scheduling teams in the 300's or high 200's. When you have 6 games on the schedule like that, you might as well put 2 losses on your team because that is what it is doing to you. I've never said to replace those games with challenging games. I would definitely schedule teams in the 200-250 range and give my team the chance to win it on the floor because if they are bubble quality team they will win those games. If they lose them, oh well. It was in their hands.
If Cal wins 5 games, they deserve to be in. I've said this since back when football used the algorithms as part of the selection metrics for the playoffs. The algorithms should be a tool for humans to use in the calculation, but they should not be overly weighted for precisely this reason. If one bubble team plays against #300 and another plays against #250, the second wins the algorithm. But that is stupid. They both would have won against either team.
Cal has no truly bad losses. They don't have awesome wins, but they have a few good ones. If you look at their best win and their worst loss, and the range in between, I think they are more competitive in at least the first round of the tourney than many teams ahead of them by any of the algorithms. But the algorithms are there and they are used. And think about from the selection committee's perspective. If you have one team that is 10-15 points higher in NET and Kenpom than another, and you choose the lower ranked team, you are going to get roasted for it. If you are Cal right now and you say you should get in over SDSU, (and honestly, I think there is a reasonable argument for that) and you complain when you don't get selected over them, everyone is going to say "Um, you are ranked 25 places lower in KenPom. What are you talking about." and laugh at you.
Which brings me to another point. Just because someone in the last four in loses doesn't mean we are poised to pass them. Right now we are ranked way behind those teams. It is like thinking if you are in 5th place and the 4th place team loses you are in 4th now without factoring in that the 4th place team was 5 games ahead of you.
People think that a certain record "gets you in" because in their experience that record has gotten teams they know in. But that is because most teams with those records don't play such a weak schedule.
And you can't rely on the ACC portion of the schedule because guess what? All of the power conference teams you compete with play a power conference schedule.
I've never said play tough games. I am all in favor of playing the same number of cupcakes and decent teams that Cal played this year. It's the brand of cupcakes that is the problem. I'm not saying play $20 dollar cupcakes from the local bougie bakery. I'm saying play hostess, not off brand cupcakes that are in the clearance bin at Grocery Outlet because they passed the expiration date. There is never an excuse for playing a team ranked #353 out of 365.
If they focus more on delving deep into the schedules, Cal will get in. If they look more at the rankings, we are in trouble.
The part that is nonsense about it all is that teams like SCU are ahead of us when they have a horrible loss in Loyola Chicago, have zero impressive wins other than other teams who also have no impressive wins like SMC and then their conference SOS is weak. I mean I'm not sure if you all have seen the mock bracket from yesterday but they had Tulsa in as an at large!? That is a bit crazy to me given they have no Q1 wins and 2 Q2 losses.
Onebearofpower said:BearlyCareAnymore said:sycasey said:
IMO if Cal had scheduled a harder OOC schedule we would have more losses right now and be in roughly the same position. It was a calculated gamble that the ACC schedule would still give us a good chance, and it has. Just need to take advantage of it.
Using Kenpom rankings
If Cal had played #277 Brown instead of Cal State Bakersfield
and #230 Abilene Christian instead of Presbyterian
and #210 Drake instead of Sac State
and #229 San Jose State instead of Northwestern State
and #303 Little Rock instead of Morgan State
and #365 Miss Valley State instead of Dominican
do you think we would have more losses now?
I'm not saying those exact teams - I just took the worst 6 teams on our schedule and replaced them with the team 50 points higher, except for Dominican which I replaced with the worst team in America.
The best team on that list is ranked 115 places lower than our worst loss.
You risk extremely little by understanding how the algorithms work and not scheduling teams in the 300's or high 200's. When you have 6 games on the schedule like that, you might as well put 2 losses on your team because that is what it is doing to you. I've never said to replace those games with challenging games. I would definitely schedule teams in the 200-250 range and give my team the chance to win it on the floor because if they are bubble quality team they will win those games. If they lose them, oh well. It was in their hands.
If Cal wins 5 games, they deserve to be in. I've said this since back when football used the algorithms as part of the selection metrics for the playoffs. The algorithms should be a tool for humans to use in the calculation, but they should not be overly weighted for precisely this reason. If one bubble team plays against #300 and another plays against #250, the second wins the algorithm. But that is stupid. They both would have won against either team.
Cal has no truly bad losses. They don't have awesome wins, but they have a few good ones. If you look at their best win and their worst loss, and the range in between, I think they are more competitive in at least the first round of the tourney than many teams ahead of them by any of the algorithms. But the algorithms are there and they are used. And think about from the selection committee's perspective. If you have one team that is 10-15 points higher in NET and Kenpom than another, and you choose the lower ranked team, you are going to get roasted for it. If you are Cal right now and you say you should get in over SDSU, (and honestly, I think there is a reasonable argument for that) and you complain when you don't get selected over them, everyone is going to say "Um, you are ranked 25 places lower in KenPom. What are you talking about." and laugh at you.
Which brings me to another point. Just because someone in the last four in loses doesn't mean we are poised to pass them. Right now we are ranked way behind those teams. It is like thinking if you are in 5th place and the 4th place team loses you are in 4th now without factoring in that the 4th place team was 5 games ahead of you.
People think that a certain record "gets you in" because in their experience that record has gotten teams they know in. But that is because most teams with those records don't play such a weak schedule.
And you can't rely on the ACC portion of the schedule because guess what? All of the power conference teams you compete with play a power conference schedule.
I've never said play tough games. I am all in favor of playing the same number of cupcakes and decent teams that Cal played this year. It's the brand of cupcakes that is the problem. I'm not saying play $20 dollar cupcakes from the local bougie bakery. I'm saying play hostess, not off brand cupcakes that are in the clearance bin at Grocery Outlet because they passed the expiration date. There is never an excuse for playing a team ranked #353 out of 365.
If they focus more on delving deep into the schedules, Cal will get in. If they look more at the rankings, we are in trouble.
The part that is nonsense about it all is that teams like SCU are ahead of us when they have a horrible loss in Loyola Chicago, have zero impressive wins other than other teams who also have no impressive wins like SMC and then their conference SOS is weak. I mean I'm not sure if you all have seen the mock bracket from yesterday but they had Tulsa in as an at large!? That is a bit crazy to me given they have no Q1 wins and 2 Q2 losses.
yeah, it seems the NET is actually better for small conference teams. can't imagine SCU's record if they were in the ACC or Big12
Big win for the Bears tonight and looking like there getting some help on the bubble
UCLA losing to Illinois at home
New Mexico losing Fresno State
Auburn in a battle with Kentucky at home
Plus U$C lost to Oregon at home earlier today
Seems unlikely Cal will be left out if they win out but 3-1 with an ACC Tourney win would be tight
UCLA losing to Illinois at home
New Mexico losing Fresno State
Auburn in a battle with Kentucky at home
Plus U$C lost to Oregon at home earlier today
Seems unlikely Cal will be left out if they win out but 3-1 with an ACC Tourney win would be tight
UCLA upset #10 Illinois, 95-94
New Mexico beat Fresno St., 80-78
Auburn squeaks by Kentucky, 75-74
TCU, Santa Clara, and VA Tech all won today.
Don't count the chicken too early...
New Mexico beat Fresno St., 80-78
Auburn squeaks by Kentucky, 75-74
TCU, Santa Clara, and VA Tech all won today.
Don't count the chicken too early...
Gobears02 said:
Big win for the Bears tonight and looking like there getting some help on the bubble
UCLA losing to Illinois at home
New Mexico losing Fresno State
Auburn in a battle with Kentucky at home
Plus U$C lost to Oregon at home earlier today
Seems unlikely Cal will be left out if they win out but 3-1 with an ACC Tourney win would be tight
USC losing is big, they're now in bubble territory. Oregon was the worst team in the B1G (though still a somewhat respectable 120 NET)
I don't think we'd be left out if we win out, barring a rash of upsets in conference championships leading to low ranked teams getting automatic bids.
Also, if we win out, we finish in the top 8 or 9 and get a first round bye in the ACC tourney, play the #8 or #9 seed, then the winner get a well-rested Duke team, a game we would not be expected to win.
Duke beat #1 Michigan tonight, big for the ACC, they should be #1 in the next rankings.
Updated bracket from Lunardi
All in all, we've moved up one spot on his bracket today, and are now the third team out according to his projection
Most important thing is to keep winning and the bubble situation would take care of itself
All in all, we've moved up one spot on his bracket today, and are now the third team out according to his projection
Most important thing is to keep winning and the bubble situation would take care of itself
— Joe Lunardi (@ESPNLunardi) February 22, 2026
Featured Stories
See All
Saturday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Establishes Dedicated Basketball Practice Facility
by Cal Athletics
Friday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz