A fairly unsurprising week in which four of the 12 teams had byes led to few changes in the standings, be they current or predicted.
In the battle royale in Boulder, it was Texas A&M escaping the Six-Pack with a hard-fought win (and an assist from Colorado). But it might be only a temporary reprieve.
It would not be inconceivable for Texas A&M to lose at Texas Tech. (Remember what Mike Singletary did to the Aggies two years ago in the Big 12 Tournament?)
If that happens, and Baylor loses at Texas as expected and K-State steals one at Colorado, we could have five teams tied at five losses entering next week. Which means I'll have to think of a new nickname...
| Seed* | Record* | Tourney* | RPI | Pomeroy | Sagarin | Streak | Best Win** | Worst Loss** | Coach | |
| Texas | 1 | 16-0 | NCAA | 8 | 3 | 4 | W-9 | Kansas | USC | Rick Barnes |
| Kansas | 2 | 15-1 | NCAA | 1 | 2 | 2 | W-5 | Arizona | Texas | Bill Self |
| Texas A&M | 3 | 10-6 | NCAA | 30 | 38 | 36 | W-1 | Missouri | Nebraska | Mark Turgeon |
| Missouri | 4 | 9-7 | NCAA | 29 | 21 | 23 | L-1 | Vanderbilt | Colorado | Mike Anderson |
| Baylor | 5 | 8-8 | Bubble | 70 | 51 | 49 | W-2 | Texas A&M | Iowa State | Scott Drew |
| Colorado | 6 | 7-9 | NIT | 99 | 58 | 57 | L-2 | Missouri | San Francisco | Tad Boyle |
| Oklahoma State | 7 | 7-9 | Bubble | 44 | 81 | 80 | W-2 | Missouri | Texas Tech | Travis Ford |
| Kansas State | 8 | 7-9 | Bubble | 34 | 42 | 38 | W-2 | Virginia Tech | Colorado | Frank Martin |
| Nebraska | 9 | 6-10 | NIT | 95 | 47 | 51 | L-3 | Texas A&M | Davidson | Doc Sadler |
| Oklahoma | 10 | 4-12 | None | 121 | 124 | 125 | L-2 | Baylor | Chaminade | Jeff Capel |
| Texas Tech | 11 | 4-12 | None | 144 | 143 | 146 | L-2 | Oklahoma State | TCU | Pat Knight |
| Iowa State | 12 | 3-13 | CBI | 146 | 78 | 66 | L-6 | Baylor | Texas Tech | Fred Hoiberg |
Note: As any of these numbers change, I will bold and color-code them to indicate direction of change.
Team names that are colored indicate a change in seed.
(green = upward, red = downward)
*Predicted
**According to RealTimeRPI
Discussion
The only change in the projected seed order came because one of the computers flipped its Bedlam result, not because of anything that happened during this week. Thus, this is a pretty boring update.
I find it interesting to note that the three viable bubble teams (Baylor, K-State and Oklahoma State) all are riding winning streaks, while the six teams on losing streaks are not really in the tournament picture. This certainly is the time for bubble teams to be finding their stride.
Meanwhile, I knocked Iowa State down to CBI status for the first time all year. It pained me to do so because I respect what Fred Hoiberg is doing, but the Cyclones are predicted to finish with a losing overall record after dropping a winnable game last Saturday. That's not NIT material, especially with all the blown late leads.
GAMER: No changes.
Pomeroy: Now has Oklahoma State winning at Oklahoma.
Sagarin: No changes.
Self-Evaluation
I'm batting around .750 for the year and I maintained that average this week by going 3-1.
As usual, the one whiff was tantalizingly close to a success. Colorado held a three-point lead with four seconds remaining, but somehow let the Aggies take it to overtime and subsequently collapsed. No computer can account for that.
OUTLOOK likes all the home teams this week except Texas Tech. But I'll definitely chalk the latter game up as a potential upset alert, nonetheless. If Texas A&M is shaky enough to almost lose at Colorado and drop four in a row, it's perfectly capable of losing in Lubbock and losing four of five.
Cumulative pick record: 41-14 (.745)
Key
Results are plugged into this wonderful tool to generate the predicted records and seed order. Winners are predicted by a best-of-three system comprising three statistical prediction models:
- G — RealTimeRPI GAMER (advanced statistical prediction model claiming 76.8-percent accuracy)
- P — Ken Pomeroy's rankings (predicts a probability outcome for each game remaining)
-
S — Sagarin predictor rankings (home-court advantage is taken into account)
Predicted Outcomes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|