Skarmory's Bubble Watch (2025)
Back and better than ever!
Hi, I’m Skarmory! I’m a self-proclaimed college basketball sicko and Duke fan, above average bracketologist on bracketmatrix the past two years (better than Lunardi!), and friend of The Low Major. I’ve done a bubble watch most years since 2018–19. Last year, The Low Major graciously offered me a guest feature to post it here, and they’ve invited me back this year, so here we are!
This post will be continuously updated throughout the season and pinned on the home page—each section will be marked with the date it was last updated on. Data is taken from warrennolan.com and bracketologists.com, with bracketmatrix.com often being referenced as the bracketologist consensus. Also, for clarification’s sake, non-Division I games are not counted in the records as they are not factored into NET.
I am starting to reference WAB more. If you’re unfamiliar, WAB stands for Wins Above Bubble, and it’s a metric that’s been alongside T-Rank for a while, before being adopted by the NCAA this year. The NCAA runs a slightly different WAB for the team sheets, and that’s the WAB we’re talking about. Overall, WAB is supposed to measure how many wins you have compared to what the average bubble team would have on your schedule. This year, 0.00 seems to be right about 45th or 46th, which makes sense, as that’s about where the last at-large is usually seeded. As I write this, Indiana is the closest team to that zero mark, at -0.03 WAB. Mar. 8, 3:06 AM
I suppose I should also explain predictive metrics and resume metrics while I’m thinking about it, because I use those terms a lot, but they’re not immediately clear to a reader who isn’t familiar with college basketball. Resume metrics look at the results of your games this year, and not what happened in them to get to those results. The above WAB is an example of a resume metric. Predictive metrics are more analytical; they look at all kinds of stats, and they rely more on how you won or lost a game, not just the pure result. KenPom is probably the most-respected one. The committee has three predictive metrics and three resume metrics on the team sheets they look at; if I’m referencing predictive or resume metric averages, it’s the average of the three of that kind on the team sheet. Mar. 8, 3:40 AM
I’ve created a new tier this season—”Sweating it”, which is meant to hold teams that have no remaining games on their schedule and which are not quite at “should be in” level. Because they don’t have any games left to play, there’s no work left for them to do. As each bubble team loses, we should see the “work left to do” category slowly get replaced by “sweating it”. Mar. 12, 9:19 PM
Got a bunch of writing to do today, but the classifications at least feel pretty much set. Have been more tired than I’d like all week, but I should be able to finish everything by the selection show. Apologies for the headers on the locks being very out of date, but that’s last on my priority list right now, because those teams should be locked in place (though West Virginia and Vanderbilt are doing their best to make me doubt their safety). Sections might be out of date and referencing potential bid stealers if I don’t have time to fully update everything, but you should be able to figure out what they mean by context. Mar. 16, 3:08 PM
Got pretty much everything up to date just in time! Mar. 16, 5:59 PM
ACC
Locks: Duke, Clemson, Louisville
Should be in: None
Sweating it: North Carolina
Despite an injury to Cooper Flagg, Duke managed to take home the ACC tournament after coming back against Georgia Tech in the quarterfinals, escaping a North Carolina comeback in the semifinals and solidly outplaying Louisville in the second half of the final. They’ll be in contention for the #1 overall seed, while Clemson is a 4- or 5-seed and Louisville is most likely a 5- or 6-seed. North Carolina will be hoping VCU and Memphis take care of business in their conference tournament finals. Mar. 16
Locks
Duke (autobid) — Last updated: Mar. 16
31–3 (19–1 ACC), NET 1, KP 1, SOR 4, 9–3 Q1, 7–0 Q2
Clemson — Last updated: Mar. 16
27–6 (18–2 ACC), NET 22, KP 18, SOR 15, 5–3 Q1, 8–2 Q2, 1 Q3 loss
Louisville — Last updated: Mar. 16
27–7 (18–2 ACC), NET 23, KP 23, SOR 11, 4–6 Q1, 11–1 Q2
Sweating it
North Carolina — Last updated: Mar. 16
22–13 (13–7 ACC), NET 36, KP 33, SOR 38, 1–12 Q1, 8–0 Q2, 1 Q3 loss
Well, North Carolina performed about as expected in the ACC tournament—they handled Notre Dame with ease, beat Wake Forest, and lost to Duke (probably closer than expected, but without Cooper Flagg playing). As such, they’re in a pretty similar spot to before the tournament, with great predictive metrics for a bubble team and respectable resume metrics. The obvious glaring issue on their profile is that they’re a rough 1–12 in Q1, with the one Q1 win being a neutral site win over UCLA that’s been bouncing between Q1-A and Q1-B for most of the past month. They’re a good 8–0 in Q2, but they did lose at home to Stanford to give them a Q3 loss. The real question is going to be how their Q1 record is weighted—if the committee likes the rest of their profile and doesn’t care much about how bad they’ve been in Q1 games, they can definitely get in over every contender if there’s not a second bid steal and possibly with another bid steal, but if the committee doesn’t like that Q1 record, they’re probably out.
Big 12
Locks: Houston, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Arizona, Kansas, BYU, West Virginia
Should be in: Baylor
Sweating it: None
Houston took the Big 12 tournament, while Baylor won their first game to pretty much secure their spot (though their profile has some marks against it that mean I’d rather leave them in should be in). Honestly, the least safe team here might be West Virginia, but I don’t foresee the Mountaineers missing in pretty much any scenario now. Mar. 16
Locks
Houston (autobid) — Last updated: Mar. 16
30–4 (19–1 Big 12), NET 3, KP 3, SOR 2, 14–3 Q1, 6–1 Q2
Texas Tech — Last updated: Mar. 16
25–8 (15–5 Big 12), NET 7, KP 7, SOR 9, 10–5 Q1, 3–3 Q2
Iowa State — Last updated: Mar. 16
24–9 (13–7 Big 12), NET 9, KP 10, SOR 13, 10–7 Q1, 6–2 Q2
Arizona — Last updated: Mar. 16
22–12 (14–6 Big 12), NET 12, KP 14, SOR 20, 10–11 Q1, 4–1 Q2
Kansas — Last updated: Mar. 16
21–12 (11–9 Big 12), NET 20, KP 21, SOR 26, 6–11 Q1, 7–1 Q2
BYU — Last updated: Mar. 16
24–9 (14–6 Big 12), NET 26, KP 24, SOR 21, 8–7 Q1, 6–2 Q2
West Virginia — Last updated: Mar. 16
19–13 (10–10 Big 12), NET 51, KP 53, SOR 43, 6–10 Q1, 4–3 Q2
Should be in
Baylor — Last updated: Mar. 16
18–14 (10–10 Big 12), NET 30, KP 29, SOR 40, 5–12 Q1, 7–1 Q2, 1 Q3 loss
Baylor is probably fine, but I’m hesitant to lock a team that sits at 18–14 with some significant flaws on their profile. Baylor’s quadrant records aren’t all that dissimilar to some recent Big 12 teams that ended just on the wrong side of the bubble, like 2023 Oklahoma State or 2022 Oklahoma. Admittedly, Baylor is slightly better in pretty much every aspect—they have one less overall loss, they’re only one game below .500 in Q1-Q3 games compared to two for those teams, and they’re a bit better across metrics than all of those teams, but I still don’t love the comparison. Throw in the fact that their best true road win is Utah, and I’d rather keep them here while acknowledging they’re almost certainly safe (probably a little safer than West Virginia, who I probably locked prematurely).
Big East
Locks: St. John’s, Marquette, UConn, Creighton
Should be in: None
Sweating it: Xavier
We have four locks here, led by a St. John’s tew, and Xavier is right on the bubble, hoping they get their name called over the other bubble options. We’ll be seeing four or five bids out of the Big East. (Shoutouts to DePaul for taking Creighton to 2OT, by the way—they seem to have climbed up to being the second-worst team in the conference!) Mar. 16
Locks
St. John’s (autobid) — Last updated: Mar. 16
30–4 (18–2 Big East), NET 13, KP 12, SOR 7, 5–4 Q1, 12–0 Q2
Marquette — Last updated: Mar. 16
23–10 (13–7 Big East), NET 26, KP 28, SOR 23, 6–8 Q1, 7–2 Q2
UConn — Last updated: Mar. 16
23–10 (14–6 Big East), NET 32, KP 35, SOR 31, 6–6 Q1, 7–3 Q2, 1 Q3 loss
Creighton — Last updated: Mar. 16
24–10 (15–5 Big East), NET 38, KP 37, SOR 24, 6–6 Q1, 5–4 Q2
Sweating it
Xavier — Last updated: Mar. 16
21–11 (13–7 Big East), NET 45, KP 43, SOR 42, 1–9 Q1, 8–2 Q2
Xavier is going to be right on the cut line come Sunday. The question is whether their resume is good enough; their KPI is very low (60th), which tanks their resume metric average, and they’ve had one or two Q1 wins the entire week. Their profile has settled on one Q1 win at the end of the year, but after Tuesday and Thursday’s NET updates, they had two Q1 wins by account of UConn being in the top-30 during those updates. Their one Q1 win at Marquette is huge, but it can only do so much on its own, and an 8–2 Q2 record is decent but not special. Because their KPI is so low, their resume metrics will be in line with some of the other bubble teams; they’re also behind a North Carolina team that sits in a pretty similar position to the Musketeers in every metric (both predictive and resume), and when those two teams are likely fighting for one spot (with some others), that’s not good. They might have been ahead of North Carolina before the conference tournament, and if they were they could remain ahead of the Tar Heels, but I wouldn’t even count on them being ahead after conference tournament results. I would really be sweating the selection show if I were a Xavier fan.
Big Ten
Locks: Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Purdue, Michigan, Illinois, UCLA, Oregon
Should be in: None
Sweating it: Ohio State, Indiana
Iowa likely just knocked Ohio State to the wrong side of the bubble after knocking off the Buckeyes to start the Big Ten tournament. That comes immediately after Iowa knocked Nebraska out of the field for the Big Ten tournament over the weekend, also ending their tournament chances; the Hawkeyes’ run ended against Illinois. Indiana’s conference tournament run is also over, as they went out in their first game to Oregon; they seem to be on the right side of the bubble for now, while Ohio State is on the wrong side of it, but both of them have landed in the new “sweating it” tier as they’re both close to the cut line. Mar. 13
Locks
Maryland — Last updated: Mar. 16
25–8 (14–6 B1G), NET 10, KP 13, SOR 18, 8–7 Q1, 6–1 Q2
Michigan State — Last updated: Mar. 16
27–6 (17–3 B1G), NET 11, KP 8, SOR 8, 13–5 Q1, 5–1 Q2
Wisconsin — Last updated: Mar. 16
26–9 (13–7 B1G), NET 14, KP 11, SOR 9, 8–8 Q1, 10–1 Q2
Illinois — Last updated: Mar. 16
21–12 (12–8 B1G), NET 17, KP 20, SOR 30, 8–10 Q1, 7–2 Q2
Purdue — Last updated: Mar. 16
22–11 (13–7 B1G), NET 19, KP 19, SOR 21, 7–10 Q1, 9–1 Q2
Michigan (autobid) — Last updated: Mar. 16
25–9 (14–6 B1G), NET 25, KP 26, SOR 16, 12–7 Q1, 4–2 Q2
UCLA — Last updated: Mar. 16
22–10 (13–7 B1G), NET 27, KP 27, SOR 28, 9–8 Q1, 5–1 Q2, 1 Q3 loss
Oregon — Last updated: Mar. 16
24–9 (12–8 B1G), NET 29, KP 31, SOR 21, 8–7 Q1, 8–2 Q2
Sweating it
Ohio State — Last updated: Mar. 16
17–15 (9–11 B1G), NET 41, KP 39, SOR 56, 6–11 Q1, 3–4 Q2
Well, that might be it for Ohio State’s tournament chances. The Buckeyes fell to Iowa in the first round of the Big Ten tournament, which is their fourth Q2 loss on the year, putting them below .500 in Q2 and four games below .500 in games above Q4. That latter number should be enough to knock them out of the field, and their 17–15 overall record is also a major problem; the only things really keeping Ohio State in contention are good predictive metrics, which should drop a bit after this loss, and six Q1 wins, which aren’t enough to get you in on their own. Even with no bid stealers, I wouldn’t expect a profile which is this bad to get in over some of the other mediocre bubble options like North Carolina or Boise State, and we did get a bid stealer in Colorado State. If the Buckeyes do get in, it’ll mostly be on the back of some good wins like at Purdue and against Kentucky, and predictive metrics which will be averaging in the high-30s, but I think they’ve pretty clearly landed on the wrong side of the bubble.
Indiana — Last updated: Mar. 16
19–13 (10–10 B1G), NET 54, KP 48, SOR 50, 4–13 Q1, 5–0 Q2
Indiana is probably fine after taking a first round loss to Oregon in the conference tournament. They seem like a very likely First Four team, probably about the second team above the cut line. They feel similar to last year’s Oklahoma squad, which was 4–12 in Q1 and 5–0 Q2, compared to this Indiana squad’s 4–13 Q1 and 5–0 Q2; that Oklahoma team was a decent bit better on predictive metrics, but it had a much tougher bubble to deal with, and it ended up being the first team out after five bid steals. I’d say that should make Indiana feel okay, because they have a much weaker bubble to deal with, but it does place them pretty close to the cut line. The strong point on this Indiana profile is the fact that they’re undefeated outside Q1 with a positive record in games above Q4, which is better than quite a few bubble teams, especially the ones close to the cut line; the question is whether their four Q1 wins (of which three are Q1-A, headed by a win at Michigan State) and five Q2 wins make their resume strong enough.
Mountain West
Locks: Utah State, New Mexico, Colorado State
Should be in: None
Sweating it: Boise State, San Diego State
Colorado State managed to snag the autobid, giving us another certain Mountain West team—Utah State also managed to get locked during the Mountain West tournament, giving us three certain bids, a team likely on the right side of the bubble (San Diego State), and a team likely on the wrong side of it (Boise State). If we don’t see both possible bid steals happen today, I’d imagine we’ll get four or more bids from the Mountain West for the fourth straight season. Mar. 16
Locks
Utah State — Last updated: Mar. 15
25–7 (15–5 MWC), NET 38, KP 51, SOR 35, 2–4 Q1, 8–3 Q2
New Mexico — Last updated: Mar. 15
24–6 (17–3 MWC), NET 42, KP 41, SOR 33, 3–3 Q1, 8–1 Q2, 2 Q3 losses
Colorado State (autobid) — Last updated: Mar. 15
25–9 (16–4 MWC), NET 50, KP 42, SOR 49, 3–5 Q1, 7–2 Q2, 2 Q3 losses
Sweating it
Boise State — Last updated: Mar. 16
23–10 (14–6 MWC), NET 44, KP 50, SOR 55, 3–6 Q1, 5–2 Q2, 1 Q3 loss, 1 Q4 loss
Boise State’s run in the conference tournament is probably too little too late, though I wouldn’t count them out. Today’s championship game mostly felt like a win-and-in game, and Boise State was never really competitive against a buzzsaw of a Colorado State team that will likely give someone fits next weekend. That result is unlikely to hurt them too much, but they probably won’t get much out of their wins over San Diego State and New Mexico either, and those wins are a large part of their at-large profile. Non-conference wins against Saint Mary’s on a neutral court (their only Q1-A win) and at home against Clemson are nice, but they also took some rough non-conference losses to the likes of Washington State and Boston College for a Q3 and Q4 loss, blemishes their profile can’t really afford. They’ve had decent predictive metrics and weak resume metrics most of the time they’ve been on the bubble, and while they made a bit of progress with their resume over this conference tournament run (however much impact it has), the predictive metrics fell backwards in the process. I wouldn’t expect to see the Broncos’ name called, but they shouldn’t be far off the field.
San Diego State — Last updated: Mar. 16
20–9 (14–6 MWC), NET 52, KP 46, SOR 47, 3–6 Q1, 5–2 Q2, 1 Q3 loss
San Diego State seems to be on the right side of the bubble after Memphis and VCU handled business today. I’d say they’re a couple teams above the cut line right now, and with one spot seeming to be contested between North Carolina, Xavier, Boise State and Texas, they’re not at much risk after neither bid stealer won. They could be in trouble from an unexpected committee decision, but I wouldn’t expect them to be; they seem very likely to be above all of those, and somewhat expect them to be above Indiana as well, but that’s less certain. Even without a bid steal, they’re likely a first four team and will be left out of several bracketologists’ final brackets, so they’ll be staying in this tier. As for the strong and weak points of their profile, a non-conference neutral site win over Houston is the crown jewel on a profile with a top-ten non-conference SOS, while their predictive metrics average below 50 due to a lot of close wins against mediocre teams.
SEC
Locks: Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Georgia, Mississippi State, Arkansas, Vanderbilt
Should be in: Oklahoma
Sweating it: Texas
We’re looking at thirteen, maybe fourteen bids for the SEC. Arkansas managed to get themselves locked by avoiding a loss to South Carolina, and Oklahoma would also be with any stronger of a conference schedule. I am a little less certain about Vanderbilt getting in now, especially with a NCSOS in the 330s, but I think they’re more likely to end up in Dayton than outside of the field entirely. That leaves Texas as the big question mark, a team whose chances I’m personally low on, but one currently projected in the field on bracketmatrix. Mar. 16
Locks
Auburn — Last updated: Mar. 16
28–5 (15–3 SEC), NET 2, KP 4, SOR 1, 16–5 Q1, 6–0 Q2
Florida (autobid) — Last updated: Mar. 16
30–4 (14–4 SEC), NET 4, KP 2, SOR 3, 11–4 Q1, 9–0 Q2
Tennessee — Last updated: Mar. 16
27–7 (12–6 SEC), NET 5, KP 5, SOR 5, 11–7 Q1, 5–0 Q2
Alabama — Last updated: Mar. 16
25–8 (13–5 SEC), NET 6, KP 6, SOR 6, 11–8 Q1, 8–0 Q2
Kentucky — Last updated: Mar. 16
22–11 (10–8 SEC), NET 15, KP 16, SOR 12, 11–10 Q1, 1–1 Q2
Missouri — Last updated: Mar. 16
22–11 (10–8 SEC), NET 16, KP 15, SOR 29, 7–11 Q1, 3–0 Q2
Texas A&M — Last updated: Mar. 16
22–10 (11–7 SEC), NET 18, KP 17, SOR 17, 7–9 Q1, 9–1 Q2
Ole Miss — Last updated: Mar. 16
22–11 (10–8 SEC), NET 28, KP 25, SOR 22, 8–10 Q1, 5–1 Q2
Georgia — Last updated: Mar. 16
20–12 (8–10 SEC), NET 33, KP 34, SOR 35, 4–11 Q1, 5–1 Q2
Mississippi State — Last updated: Mar. 16
21–12 (8–10 SEC), NET 34, KP 32, SOR 34, 7–10 Q1, 6–2 Q2
Arkansas — Last updated: Mar. 16
20–13 (8–10 SEC), NET 40, KP 40, SOR 45, 5–10 Q1, 4–3 Q2
Vanderbilt — Last updated: Mar. 16
20–12 (8–10 SEC), NET 48, KP 49, SOR 41, 5–9 Q1, 4–3 Q2
Should be in
Oklahoma — Last updated: Mar. 16
20–13 (6–12 SEC), NET 43, KP 38, SOR 36, 7–11 Q1, 4–1 Q2, 1 Q3 loss
Oklahoma seems to have moved above the group of bubble teams, and closer to teams like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Vanderbilt. I’ve moved them up to should be in as such, as I think they’re pretty likely to be fine now, but there are still a few reasons they could get snubbed. The most obvious is the 6–12 SEC record, which the committee easily could make an example out of; they’re also a pretty bad 2–7 in true road games, though neutral site wins over Arizona, Louisville and Michigan in non-conference help clean that stain on their profile, and they did pick up a conference tournament neutral site win over Georgia (of unclear value). I’m just inclined to think that if they want to punish teams that play in a strong conference for having a lot of losses, this Oklahoma team isn’t the one they’d do it to—they played a respectable enough non-conference schedule, picked up three Q1 and two Q2 wins there, and finished the regular season 19–12 out of possibly the strongest conference in college basketball history. Yes, they did play seven Q4 games against some bottom-feeders in Q4, but despite that they still have a top-half non-conference SOS. The Sooners should be fine unless the committee makes an example out of their SEC record.
Sweating it
Texas — Last updated: Mar. 16
19–15 (6–12 SEC), NET 39, KP 44, SOR 53, 7–10 Q1, 3–5 Q2
Texas has cracked being the last team in on bracketmatrix for now, though it’s close between themselves, Xavier, North Carolina, and Boise State (and there’s still a potential bid steal available if UAB can close out their game against Memphis). I personally think they’re the least likely of these teams to make the tournament. This team checks most boxes for the typical committee “snub”—they made a conference tournament run (notoriously undervalued, though I will admit they got wins on Wednesday and Thursday instead of later, which could help a bit), they have a horrible non-conference SOS (287th), they’re at 15 overall losses, and they’re multiple games below .500 in games above Q4 (12–15 after the Tennessee loss). Maybe their conference tournament run pushes their profile to the point that it could get in without some of the wins coming in the conference tournament, but their last two Q1 wins did come in the conference tournament and there’s no way around that. This is just not a profile the committee would typically like; even with a predictive metric average around 42, that’s in line with some of the other contenders, and their 52.3 average on resume metrics feels like it’d be questionable even without some of it being boosted by their conference tournament run.
Others
Autobids: Gonzaga, VCU, UC San Diego, Drake
Locks: Saint Mary’s, Memphis
Should be in: None
Sweating it: UC Irvine
UC San Diego and VCU sealed their bids with conference tournament wins, likely clearing up our entire picture—I’ve left UC Irvine on the page for now as a potential long shot, but it’s a really long shot. Mar. 16
Autobids
Gonzaga — Last updated: Mar. 16
25–8 (14–4 WCC), NET 8, KP 9, SOR 39, 5–5 Q1, 5–3 Q2
VCU — Last updated: Mar. 16
27–6 (15–3 A10), NET 31, KP 30, SOR 48, 2–1 Q1, 6–4 Q2, 1 Q4 loss
UC San Diego — Last updated: Mar. 16
28–4 (18–2 Big West), NET 35, KP 36, SOR 46, 2–1 Q1, 2–1 Q2, 2 Q3 losses
Memphis — Last updated: Mar. 16
29–5 (16–2 AAC), NET 50, KP 52, SOR 14, 6–1 Q1, 5–2 Q2, 2 Q3 losses
Drake — Last updated: Mar. 16
28–3 (17–3 MVC), NET 56, KP 58, SOR 32, 2–0 Q1, 4–0 Q2, 3 Q3 losses
Locks
Saint Mary’s — Last updated: Mar. 16
27–5 (17–1 WCC), NET 21, KP 22, SOR 25, 4–3 Q1, 6–2 Q2
Sweating it
UC Irvine — Last updated: Mar. 16
27–6 (17–3 Big West), NET 62, KP 66, SOR 57, 1–1 Q1, 3–2 Q2, 3 Q3 losses
I’ll admit that UC Irvine has extremely little chance at an at-large, but I do think there’s some chance the committee takes them as a bizarre inclusion. A win at UC San Diego is a Q1-A win to top the resume, and road wins over Northern Iowa, CSUN and Belmont are Q2 wins. It’s not an amazing resume, but it’s a decent one, and a 27–6 overall record with a Q1+Q2 record over .500 is a whole lot better than most of the remaining options. Admittedly, Q3 losses vs. CSU Northridge, at UC Riverside, and at Duquesne are rough, and the additional two Q2 losses don’t help; UC Irvine also doesn’t have much respect from the predictive metrics, especially BPI, but I think their chances aren’t zero on this bubble. Maybe I’m just holding onto hope for a two-bid Big West; I probably am.
Statistics
This portion will cover teams moving in/out across the past week-ish. (It's pretty loose, so I just leave here what I think makes sense to include at this point.)
+ None
– None
Teams on my radar: Wake Forest, Nebraska, SMU, Cincinnati
Total locks/autobids: 43 (9 clinched autobids, 2 predicted autobids)
Total should be in: 2
Total sweating it: 8
Spots vs. teams included (accounting for autobids): 37, 34 taken by locks/should be in, 3 spots for 8 sweating it
If you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading! Remember to check back here, as this will be updated throughout the season. I also do bracketology over at my blog, so feel free to check that out.