Well earned.

I predict Cal will get in before Stanford due to head to head. Only 4 points apart in net.i predict we will be in the play in game

Strength of schedule, or lack thereof, is the issue here.

SMU, for example, played a significantly stronger schedule by the metrics used by the tournament committee.

SMU: 22 games total against Quad 1 and Quad 2 (9 wins), out of 33 games. 6 games vs Quad 4 teams and no games vs non-D1 teams. 26th most difficult schedule according to the SOS rankings used by the committee.

Cal: 16 games total against Quad 1 and Quad 2 (6 wins), out of 32 games. 8 games vs Quad 4 teams and 1 game vs a non-D1 team. 91st most difficult schedule according to the SOS rankings.

With a weaker SOS, a team with 7 losses like VCU or 8 losses like Santa Clara has a much better chance of being selected for the tournament than a team with 11 or 12 losses. Edit: VCU (#62) and Santa Clara (#48) had more difficult schedules than Cal (#91) in addition to having more wins overall.

We are still on the bubble and it won't change for us so this is basically lunardi's final bracket

So we still have 0.9% chance of being selected

pic.twitter.com/ceEz3foefK

— Joe Lunardi (@ESPNLunardi) March 15, 2026

Johnfox said:

---

I'm seeing a lot of people pointing to total wins as a key factor for who should get into the MBB tournament. Per USA Today's current bracketology (which is constantly updated) Stanford and Cal would be the only Power 4 teams with at least 20 wins left out of the tournament. pic.twitter.com/p3yqEWj8bg

— Chris La Puma🌲 (@ChrisLaPuma) March 12, 2026

---

Brilliant idea if you want to see P4 teams play Dominican 13 times a year.

March.

HoopDreams said:

---

We are still on the bubble and it won't change for us so this is basically lunardi's final bracket

So we still have 0.9% chance of being selected

pic.twitter.com/ceEz3foefK

— Joe Lunardi (@ESPNLunardi) March 15, 2026

---

"The Bear Will Not Quit, The Bear Will Not Die." (LOL)

Surprised this is even a post and or a question. Madsen picked a cupcake schedule. Smart guy but we don't deserve to get it. That said we have some quality wins and if Stanford deserves because of 20 wins then we deserve because of 21.
Anyway be prepared for an earthquake if we do get in.

concernedparent said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

Surprised this is even a post and or a question. Madsen picked a cupcake schedule. Smart guy but we don't deserve to get it. That said we have some quality wins and if Stanford deserves because of 20 wins then we deserve because of 21.
Anyway be prepared for an earthquake if we do get in.

---

It's not even the cupcakes. Blowing the Pitt game and not finding a way to scrap to a win @ Syracuse and Virginia Tech was the difference.

---

It is the combination of a cupcake OOC schedule and a .500 conference record. We needed both to be better.

To your point, it is OK to lose to Duke, but we had 8 more conference losses. We just lost 2 or 3 games we really needed to win given our poor NET (mostly due to our weak OOC schedule).

Smu, who we beat, gets in with 8-10 conference record while Cal and Stanford each were 9-9. On to the nit or crown.

I don't follow the metrics for the tournament but can someone explain why UCLA is in other than history?

TonyTiger said:

---

Surprised this is even a post and or a question. Madsen picked a cupcake schedule. Smart guy but we don't deserve to get it. That said we have some quality wins and if Stanford deserves because of 20 wins then we deserve because of 21.
Anyway be prepared for an earthquake if we do get in.

---

The NCAA ignores the Dominican win and only counts our 20 D1 wins.
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings

When is the NIT selection show 2026?

• Date: Sunday, March 15
• Time: 9:30 p.m. ET

The 2026 NIT bracket will be revealed beginning at 9:30 p.m. ET on Sunday, a few hours after the NCAA tournament field is finalized.

Where to watch 2026 NIT bracket reveal

• TV channel: None
• Live stream: NIT social media channels

3146gabby said:

---

I don't follow the metrics for the tournament but can someone explain why UCLA is in other than history?

---

23 wins, #31 in the NET, 5 Quad 1 wins, 5 Quad 2 wins…. no brainer on that basis, but UCLA's name, history and the LA media market certainly doesn't hurt.

3146gabby said:

---

I don't follow the metrics for the tournament but can someone explain why UCLA is in other than history?

---

Because they have a better record than us and beat 4 teams better than any single one of our wins.

Of course I didn't expect to get in after losing three of the last four. Now we'll see about the NIT, and most important…Mark Madsen.

3146gabby said:

---

I don't follow the metrics for the tournament but can someone explain why UCLA is in other than history?

---

I don't think they're a controversial selection.

UCLA has a slightly better record with four wins against Top 10 teams including Purdue, Nebraska and Illinois. Also helps to be in the B1G. UCLA finished 6th in that league and made it to the B1G tourney semifinals.

There are stronger arguments against other teams that made into the tourney over Cal imo.

Texas making it is so bogus man. They lost 5 of their last 6 and were 4-4 in Q2 and Q3. We have better wins than SMU, beat them head to head and they also lost 5 of their last 6. Unreal. Their OOC SOS is also not good as well.

sycasey said:

---

The teams that made it had better resumes than we did, there's no real mystery here. Stanford didn't deserve to get in either, and they didn't.

We needed to (at minimum) take care of business against the weaker opponents on our schedule down the stretch and we did not. Lost badly at home to Pitt and coughed up a lead at Wake. That was the ballgame.

---

Agree that we played our way out of it, at the end, so if we wanted in, we need to look in the mirror.

Still SMU?!? (supposedly the last team in) We beat them head-to-head, we finished above them in conference (where they had a losing record) and we had a better overall record. Okay, I suppose their non-conference was more difficult? Still this NET and ever-shifting "quadrants" bs sounds like analytics-for-analytics' sake.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The teams that made it had better resumes than we did, there's no real mystery here. Stanford didn't deserve to get in either, and they didn't.

We needed to (at minimum) take care of business against the weaker opponents on our schedule down the stretch and we did not. Lost badly at home to Pitt and coughed up a lead at Wake. That was the ballgame.

---

Agree that we played our way out of it, at the end, so if we wanted in, we need to look in the mirror.

Still SMU?!? (supposedly the last team in) We beat them head-to-head, we finished above them in conference (where they had a losing record) and we had a better overall record. Okay, I suppose their non-conference was more difficult? Still this NET and ever-shifting "quadrants" bs sounds like analytics-for-analytics' sake.

---

SMU played a much tougher schedule, yes. 37 in the NET ranking compared to 68 for Cal. Not hard to see why they made it.

And if the commentary is to be believed, SMU was the last team in.

---

This only tells me that the NET is deeply flawed.

Pitt killed us, and Lunardi having been at Haas for that debacle really hurt our rep as he is still the top bracketologist.

FSU also did us in, they finished the season very strong and displaced SMU as our first ACCT matchup. We could have definitely beaten SMU. I thought FSU was very deserving of a tourney berth based on their decent 10-8 ACC record, and their very strong finish, with a solid game against Duke where they led most of the game and lost by a point.

Winning the NIT would be a great compensation and achievement for the program. I hope the team will be motivated enough.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The teams that made it had better resumes than we did, there's no real mystery here. Stanford didn't deserve to get in either, and they didn't.

We needed to (at minimum) take care of business against the weaker opponents on our schedule down the stretch and we did not. Lost badly at home to Pitt and coughed up a lead at Wake. That was the ballgame.

---

Agree that we played our way out of it, at the end, so if we wanted in, we need to look in the mirror.

Still SMU?!? (supposedly the last team in) We beat them head-to-head, we finished above them in conference (where they had a losing record) and we had a better overall record. Okay, I suppose their non-conference was more difficult? Still this NET and ever-shifting "quadrants" bs sounds like analytics-for-analytics' sake.

---

SMU played a much tougher schedule, yes. 37 in the NET ranking compared to 68 for Cal. Not hard to see why they made it.

And if the commentary is to be believed, SMU was the last team in.

---

NET treats every game equally. It is just a really bad idea to play a lot of teams ranked in the 300s. You think emptying the bench and coasting to a 15 or 20 point win will be a positive. It is not. If you look at Ken Pom, Cal State Bakersfield ranked #326. Their Net Rating is -15.28 We beat them by 27. That would indicate our Net rating should be +11.72. That team would be the #73 team in the country. Not too coincidentally our Net rating is +11.43 and we were ranked #73 in the country.

If we play CSU Bakersfield and we want to be ranked #35 like Santa Clara with a +19.40, we need to beat a team like CSU Bakersfield by 35 points, I just don't see Madsen doing that. Far better to play #159 UC Davis and beat them by 20.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The teams that made it had better resumes than we did, there's no real mystery here. Stanford didn't deserve to get in either, and they didn't.

We needed to (at minimum) take care of business against the weaker opponents on our schedule down the stretch and we did not. Lost badly at home to Pitt and coughed up a lead at Wake. That was the ballgame.

---

Agree that we played our way out of it, at the end, so if we wanted in, we need to look in the mirror.

Still SMU?!? (supposedly the last team in) We beat them head-to-head, we finished above them in conference (where they had a losing record) and we had a better overall record. Okay, I suppose their non-conference was more difficult? Still this NET and ever-shifting "quadrants" bs sounds like analytics-for-analytics' sake.

---

SMU played a much tougher schedule, yes. 37 in the NET ranking compared to 68 for Cal. Not hard to see why they made it.

And if the commentary is to be believed, SMU was the last team in.

---

NET treats every game equally. It is just a really bad idea to play a lot of teams ranked in the 300s. You think emptying the bench and coasting to a 15 or 20 point win will be a positive. It is not. If you look at Ken Pom, Cal State Bakersfield ranked #326. Their Net Rating is -15.28 We beat them by 27. That would indicate our Net rating should be +11.72. That team would be the #73 team in the country. Not too coincidentally our Net rating is +11.43 and we were ranked #73 in the country.

If we play UC Bakersfield and we want to be ranked #35 like Santa Clara with a +19.40, we need to beat a team like UC Bakersfield by 35 points, I just don't see Madsen doing that. Far better to play #159 UC Davis and beat them by 20.

---

I am unfamiliar with a UC Bakersfield

calgldnbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The teams that made it had better resumes than we did, there's no real mystery here. Stanford didn't deserve to get in either, and they didn't.

We needed to (at minimum) take care of business against the weaker opponents on our schedule down the stretch and we did not. Lost badly at home to Pitt and coughed up a lead at Wake. That was the ballgame.

---

Agree that we played our way out of it, at the end, so if we wanted in, we need to look in the mirror.

Still SMU?!? (supposedly the last team in) We beat them head-to-head, we finished above them in conference (where they had a losing record) and we had a better overall record. Okay, I suppose their non-conference was more difficult? Still this NET and ever-shifting "quadrants" bs sounds like analytics-for-analytics' sake.

---

SMU played a much tougher schedule, yes. 37 in the NET ranking compared to 68 for Cal. Not hard to see why they made it.

And if the commentary is to be believed, SMU was the last team in.

---

NET treats every game equally. It is just a really bad idea to play a lot of teams ranked in the 300s. You think emptying the bench and coasting to a 15 or 20 point win will be a positive. It is not. If you look at Ken Pom, Cal State Bakersfield ranked #326. Their Net Rating is -15.28 We beat them by 27. That would indicate our Net rating should be +11.72. That team would be the #73 team in the country. Not too coincidentally our Net rating is +11.43 and we were ranked #73 in the country.

If we play UC Bakersfield and we want to be ranked #35 like Santa Clara with a +19.40, we need to beat a team like UC Bakersfield by 35 points, I just don't see Madsen doing that. Far better to play #159 UC Davis and beat them by 20.

---

I am unfamiliar with a UC Bakersfield

---

UCLA and UC Merced had a baby and left it in Bakersfield.

There are so many jokes inwant to make about the central valley. But i will be good

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The teams that made it had better resumes than we did, there's no real mystery here. Stanford didn't deserve to get in either, and they didn't.

We needed to (at minimum) take care of business against the weaker opponents on our schedule down the stretch and we did not. Lost badly at home to Pitt and coughed up a lead at Wake. That was the ballgame.

---

Agree that we played our way out of it, at the end, so if we wanted in, we need to look in the mirror.

Still SMU?!? (supposedly the last team in) We beat them head-to-head, we finished above them in conference (where they had a losing record) and we had a better overall record. Okay, I suppose their non-conference was more difficult? Still this NET and ever-shifting "quadrants" bs sounds like analytics-for-analytics' sake.

---

SMU played a much tougher schedule, yes. 37 in the NET ranking compared to 68 for Cal. Not hard to see why they made it.

And if the commentary is to be believed, SMU was the last team in.

---

I repeat, we finished higher in the same conference than SMU and beat them head-to-head (and had a better overall record).

If the NET told you to jump off the Golden Gate bridge, would you do it? Maybe not? Well, what if the NET told you that your quadrant 2 + 3 wins were 4.2 against the bubble, even though 3 of them used to be quadrant 4 wins, before scrubbing changed 2 of them to quadrant 5 wins, which would put you on the 3 line?

If you're not sure, ask AI and get back to us ASAP!

calgldnbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The teams that made it had better resumes than we did, there's no real mystery here. Stanford didn't deserve to get in either, and they didn't.

We needed to (at minimum) take care of business against the weaker opponents on our schedule down the stretch and we did not. Lost badly at home to Pitt and coughed up a lead at Wake. That was the ballgame.

---

Agree that we played our way out of it, at the end, so if we wanted in, we need to look in the mirror.

Still SMU?!? (supposedly the last team in) We beat them head-to-head, we finished above them in conference (where they had a losing record) and we had a better overall record. Okay, I suppose their non-conference was more difficult? Still this NET and ever-shifting "quadrants" bs sounds like analytics-for-analytics' sake.

---

SMU played a much tougher schedule, yes. 37 in the NET ranking compared to 68 for Cal. Not hard to see why they made it.

And if the commentary is to be believed, SMU was the last team in.

---

NET treats every game equally. It is just a really bad idea to play a lot of teams ranked in the 300s. You think emptying the bench and coasting to a 15 or 20 point win will be a positive. It is not. If you look at Ken Pom, Cal State Bakersfield ranked #326. Their Net Rating is -15.28 We beat them by 27. That would indicate our Net rating should be +11.72. That team would be the #73 team in the country. Not too coincidentally our Net rating is +11.43 and we were ranked #73 in the country.

If we play UC Bakersfield and we want to be ranked #35 like Santa Clara with a +19.40, we need to beat a team like UC Bakersfield by 35 points, I just don't see Madsen doing that. Far better to play #159 UC Davis and beat them by 20.

---

I am unfamiliar with a UC Bakersfield

---

Yes, I did initially say "Cal State" but yes, CSU Bakersfield, thanks I will correct.

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The teams that made it had better resumes than we did, there's no real mystery here. Stanford didn't deserve to get in either, and they didn't.

We needed to (at minimum) take care of business against the weaker opponents on our schedule down the stretch and we did not. Lost badly at home to Pitt and coughed up a lead at Wake. That was the ballgame.

---

Agree that we played our way out of it, at the end, so if we wanted in, we need to look in the mirror.

Still SMU?!? (supposedly the last team in) We beat them head-to-head, we finished above them in conference (where they had a losing record) and we had a better overall record. Okay, I suppose their non-conference was more difficult? Still this NET and ever-shifting "quadrants" bs sounds like analytics-for-analytics' sake.

---

SMU played a much tougher schedule, yes. 37 in the NET ranking compared to 68 for Cal. Not hard to see why they made it.

And if the commentary is to be believed, SMU was the last team in.

---

I repeat, we finished higher in the same conference than SMU and beat them head-to-head (and had a better overall record).

If the NET told you to jump off the Golden Gate bridge, would you do it? Maybe not? Well, what if the NET told you that your quadrant 2 + 3 wins were 4.2 against the bubble, even though 3 of them used to be quadrant 4 wins, before scrubbing changed 2 of them to quadrant 5 wins, which would put you on the 3 line?

If you're not sure, ask AI and get back to us ASAP!

---

NC State and Florida State both finished higher in the ACC Standings than Cal, and Florida State beat us twice and didn't get in. I agree SMU shouldn't have gotten in, but they did get screwed last year when they were 23-10 (13-7) 4th in the ACC. It was not just us versus SMU, we were not even in the first 4 out.