[Papa John]

Stanford at #59. 

Current NET rankings for past/future opponents:

Alabama #9 (Q1 W)
Colorado #16 (Q1 L)
USC #24
UA #32 (Q2 W)
UCLA #34 (Q2 W)
Oregon #46 (Q1 L)
Indiana #47 (Q1 L)
UNC #51 (Q2 L)
Utah #107 (Q2 L)
ASU #115
CSU Bakersfield #123 (Q3 W)
WSU #127 (Q3 W)
OSU #147 (Q3 W)
Cal #173
UW #196 (Q4 W)
CSU Northridge #294 (Q4 W)
North Carolina A&T #317 (Q4 W)

Barring a major upset in the Pac-12 tourney, it looks like five teams from the Pac have a viable path to the NCAA tournament. Stanford's next three games are at UA, at ASU and at USC. Also, Stanford has seven games remaining versus NET > 100 teams (ASU, Cal x 2, Utah, UW, WSU, OSU). Splitting the remaining games against NET < 100 teams (UA, USC, Colorado, Oregon) plus sweeping the NET > 100 games would yield a regular season record of 18-7 and a 14-5 conference record. That would be achievable, IMO, if all hands were on deck. More realistically, I don't think we'll have everyone available for all remaining games and would predict something more along the lines of 15-10/11-8, which would mean that Stanford would have to make a run in the conference tournament in order to get an at-large bid.

[Papa John]

Stanford at #59. 

Current NET rankings for past/future opponents:

Alabama #9 (Q1 W)
Colorado #16 (Q1 L)
USC #24
UA #32 (Q2 W)
UCLA #34 (Q2 W)
Oregon #46 (Q1 L)
Indiana #47 (Q1 L)
UNC #51 (Q2 L)
Utah #107 (Q2 L)
ASU #115
CSU Bakersfield #123 (Q3 W)
WSU #127 (Q3 W)
OSU #147 (Q3 W)
Cal #173
UW #196 (Q4 W)
CSU Northridge #294 (Q4 W)
North Carolina A&T #317 (Q4 W)

Barring a major upset in the Pac-12 tourney, it looks like five teams from the Pac have a viable path to the NCAA tournament. Stanford's next three games are at UA, at ASU and at USC. Also, Stanford has seven games remaining versus NET > 100 teams (ASU, Cal x 2, Utah, UW, WSU, OSU). Splitting the remaining games against NET < 100 teams (UA, USC, Colorado, Oregon) plus sweeping the NET > 100 games would yield a regular season record of 18-7 and a 14-5 conference record. That would be achievable, IMO, if all hands were on deck. More realistically, I don't think we'll have everyone available for all remaining games and would predict something more along the lines of 15-10/11-8, which would mean that Stanford would have to make a run in the conference tournament in order to get an at-large bid.

[burger]

Stanford at #59. 

Current NET rankings for past/future opponents:

Alabama #9 (Q1 W)
Colorado #16 (Q1 L)
USC #24
UA #32 (Q2 W)
UCLA #34 (Q2 W)
Oregon #46 (Q1 L)
Indiana #47 (Q1 L)
UNC #51 (Q2 L)
Utah #107 (Q2 L)
ASU #115
CSU Bakersfield #123 (Q3 W)
WSU #127 (Q3 W)
OSU #147 (Q3 W)
Cal #173
UW #196 (Q4 W)
CSU Northridge #294 (Q4 W)
North Carolina A&T #317 (Q4 W)

Barring a major upset in the Pac-12 tourney, it looks like five teams from the Pac have a viable path to the NCAA tournament. Stanford's next three games are at UA, at ASU and at USC. Also, Stanford has seven games remaining versus NET > 100 teams (ASU, Cal x 2, Utah, UW, WSU, OSU). Splitting the remaining games against NET < 100 teams (UA, USC, Colorado, Oregon) plus sweeping the NET > 100 games would yield a regular season record of 18-7 and a 14-5 conference record. That would be achievable, IMO, if all hands were on deck. More realistically, I don't think we'll have everyone available for all remaining games and would predict something more along the lines of 15-10/11-8, which would mean that Stanford would have to make a run in the conference tournament in order to get an at-large bid.

There are other ranking systems, and they generally rate Stanford better than 59th.
Ken Pomeroy: 48th
Bart Torvik: 48th
RPI: 33rd

Joe Lunardi had us as the last at large team in the bracket the day before the UCLA game, and the "meta bracket" has us as the last team in as well.

So I'm a bit more optimistic about our Tourney chances, though we will have to continue to win with a depleted roster if we're going to make it.  But at least we've already booked a few quality wins, and there are several chances for more on the schedule.

Getting/staying healthy will be key, though.  It is not a good sign that Davis wasn't even at the game yesterday, and they are saying it's a knee injury now--I think it was an ankle previously.

[burger]

Stanford at #59. 

Current NET rankings for past/future opponents:

Alabama #9 (Q1 W)
Colorado #16 (Q1 L)
USC #24
UA #32 (Q2 W)
UCLA #34 (Q2 W)
Oregon #46 (Q1 L)
Indiana #47 (Q1 L)
UNC #51 (Q2 L)
Utah #107 (Q2 L)
ASU #115
CSU Bakersfield #123 (Q3 W)
WSU #127 (Q3 W)
OSU #147 (Q3 W)
Cal #173
UW #196 (Q4 W)
CSU Northridge #294 (Q4 W)
North Carolina A&T #317 (Q4 W)

Barring a major upset in the Pac-12 tourney, it looks like five teams from the Pac have a viable path to the NCAA tournament. Stanford's next three games are at UA, at ASU and at USC. Also, Stanford has seven games remaining versus NET > 100 teams (ASU, Cal x 2, Utah, UW, WSU, OSU). Splitting the remaining games against NET < 100 teams (UA, USC, Colorado, Oregon) plus sweeping the NET > 100 games would yield a regular season record of 18-7 and a 14-5 conference record. That would be achievable, IMO, if all hands were on deck. More realistically, I don't think we'll have everyone available for all remaining games and would predict something more along the lines of 15-10/11-8, which would mean that Stanford would have to make a run in the conference tournament in order to get an at-large bid.

There are other ranking systems, and they generally rate Stanford better than 59th.
Ken Pomeroy: 48th
Bart Torvik: 48th
RPI: 33rd

Joe Lunardi had us as the last at large team in the bracket the day before the UCLA game, and the "meta bracket" has us as the last team in as well.

So I'm a bit more optimistic about our Tourney chances, though we will have to continue to win with a depleted roster if we're going to make it.  But at least we've already booked a few quality wins, and there are several chances for more on the schedule.

Getting/staying healthy will be key, though.  It is not a good sign that Davis wasn't even at the game yesterday, and they are saying it's a knee injury now--I think it was an ankle previously.

[AlbanyCardinal]

I'm seeing higher rankings and rosier projections, too, including Stanford landing a 10 seed. But making those projections reality requires that Stanford keep winning, perhaps as many as 7 of the last 11. Maybe 5-6 would get us in, assuming Stanford wins a few games in the P12 tourney. I like our chances this season, but I agree that health is a major concern. Especially when I look at the schedule for the next five games (zoinks): Thurs (AZ away), Sat (ASU away), following Tues ($¢ away, makeup), Thurs, as in two days later (cal), and Sun (cal). It's not till that second game against cal, on Sunday, 2/7, after which Stanford will get more than a 2-3-day break. 

Coach said they'd dealt with adversity so far this season and that they'd continue to do so; he meant it.

Stanford at #59. 

Current NET rankings for past/future opponents:

Alabama #9 (Q1 W)
Colorado #16 (Q1 L)
USC #24
UA #32 (Q2 W)
UCLA #34 (Q2 W)
Oregon #46 (Q1 L)
Indiana #47 (Q1 L)
UNC #51 (Q2 L)
Utah #107 (Q2 L)
ASU #115
CSU Bakersfield #123 (Q3 W)
WSU #127 (Q3 W)
OSU #147 (Q3 W)
Cal #173
UW #196 (Q4 W)
CSU Northridge #294 (Q4 W)
North Carolina A&T #317 (Q4 W)

Barring a major upset in the Pac-12 tourney, it looks like five teams from the Pac have a viable path to the NCAA tournament. Stanford's next three games are at UA, at ASU and at USC. Also, Stanford has seven games remaining versus NET > 100 teams (ASU, Cal x 2, Utah, UW, WSU, OSU). Splitting the remaining games against NET < 100 teams (UA, USC, Colorado, Oregon) plus sweeping the NET > 100 games would yield a regular season record of 18-7 and a 14-5 conference record. That would be achievable, IMO, if all hands were on deck. More realistically, I don't think we'll have everyone available for all remaining games and would predict something more along the lines of 15-10/11-8, which would mean that Stanford would have to make a run in the conference tournament in order to get an at-large bid.

There are other ranking systems, and they generally rate Stanford better than 59th.
Ken Pomeroy: 48th
Bart Torvik: 48th
RPI: 33rd

Joe Lunardi had us as the last at large team in the bracket the day before the UCLA game, and the "meta bracket" has us as the last team in as well.

So I'm a bit more optimistic about our Tourney chances, though we will have to continue to win with a depleted roster if we're going to make it.  But at least we've already booked a few quality wins, and there are several chances for more on the schedule.

Getting/staying healthy will be key, though.  It is not a good sign that Davis wasn't even at the game yesterday, and they are saying it's a knee injury now--I think it was an ankle previously.

[AlbanyCardinal]

I'm seeing higher rankings and rosier projections, too, including Stanford landing a 10 seed. But making those projections reality requires that Stanford keep winning, perhaps as many as 7 of the last 11. Maybe 5-6 would get us in, assuming Stanford wins a few games in the P12 tourney. I like our chances this season, but I agree that health is a major concern. Especially when I look at the schedule for the next five games (zoinks): Thurs (AZ away), Sat (ASU away), following Tues ($¢ away, makeup), Thurs, as in two days later (cal), and Sun (cal). It's not till that second game against cal, on Sunday, 2/7, after which Stanford will get more than a 2-3-day break. 

Coach said they'd dealt with adversity so far this season and that they'd continue to do so; he meant it.

Stanford at #59. 

Current NET rankings for past/future opponents:

Alabama #9 (Q1 W)
Colorado #16 (Q1 L)
USC #24
UA #32 (Q2 W)
UCLA #34 (Q2 W)
Oregon #46 (Q1 L)
Indiana #47 (Q1 L)
UNC #51 (Q2 L)
Utah #107 (Q2 L)
ASU #115
CSU Bakersfield #123 (Q3 W)
WSU #127 (Q3 W)
OSU #147 (Q3 W)
Cal #173
UW #196 (Q4 W)
CSU Northridge #294 (Q4 W)
North Carolina A&T #317 (Q4 W)

Barring a major upset in the Pac-12 tourney, it looks like five teams from the Pac have a viable path to the NCAA tournament. Stanford's next three games are at UA, at ASU and at USC. Also, Stanford has seven games remaining versus NET > 100 teams (ASU, Cal x 2, Utah, UW, WSU, OSU). Splitting the remaining games against NET < 100 teams (UA, USC, Colorado, Oregon) plus sweeping the NET > 100 games would yield a regular season record of 18-7 and a 14-5 conference record. That would be achievable, IMO, if all hands were on deck. More realistically, I don't think we'll have everyone available for all remaining games and would predict something more along the lines of 15-10/11-8, which would mean that Stanford would have to make a run in the conference tournament in order to get an at-large bid.

There are other ranking systems, and they generally rate Stanford better than 59th.
Ken Pomeroy: 48th
Bart Torvik: 48th
RPI: 33rd

Joe Lunardi had us as the last at large team in the bracket the day before the UCLA game, and the "meta bracket" has us as the last team in as well.

So I'm a bit more optimistic about our Tourney chances, though we will have to continue to win with a depleted roster if we're going to make it.  But at least we've already booked a few quality wins, and there are several chances for more on the schedule.

Getting/staying healthy will be key, though.  It is not a good sign that Davis wasn't even at the game yesterday, and they are saying it's a knee injury now--I think it was an ankle previously.

[Papa John]

I'm using the NET ranking because it's a primary criterion for the selection committee:

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/med...selections

The committee also considers rankings from ESPN (strength of record, BPI), KPI, KenPom and Sagarin.

Stanford's ranking in these metrics:
ESPN strength of record: #47
ESPN BPI: #61
KPI: #26 (!)
KenPom: #48
Sagarin: #57

Also, I note that the 10-member selection committee has representatives from Duke (ACC, committee chair), Kentucky (SEC), Southland Conference, Southwestern Athletic Conference, Atlantic 10 Conference, Toledo (MAC), Northwestern (B1G), Iowa State (Big 12), Bradley (Missouri Valley Conference), Mountain West Conference.

The conferences not represented on the men's selection committee?
ASUN
America East
American Athletic
Big East
Big Sky
Big South
Big West
Colonial Athletic
Conference USA
Horizon
Metro Atlantic Athletic
Mid-Eastern Athletic
Northeast
Ohio Valley
Pac-12
Patriot
Southern
Summit
Sun Belt
West Coast
Western Athletic

[Papa John]

I'm using the NET ranking because it's a primary criterion for the selection committee:

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/med...selections

The committee also considers rankings from ESPN (strength of record, BPI), KPI, KenPom and Sagarin.

Stanford's ranking in these metrics:
ESPN strength of record: #47
ESPN BPI: #61
KPI: #26 (!)
KenPom: #48
Sagarin: #57

Also, I note that the 10-member selection committee has representatives from Duke (ACC, committee chair), Kentucky (SEC), Southland Conference, Southwestern Athletic Conference, Atlantic 10 Conference, Toledo (MAC), Northwestern (B1G), Iowa State (Big 12), Bradley (Missouri Valley Conference), Mountain West Conference.

The conferences not represented on the men's selection committee?
ASUN
America East
American Athletic
Big East
Big Sky
Big South
Big West
Colonial Athletic
Conference USA
Horizon
Metro Atlantic Athletic
Mid-Eastern Athletic
Northeast
Ohio Valley
Pac-12
Patriot
Southern
Summit
Sun Belt
West Coast
Western Athletic

[burger]

Also, I note that the 10-member selection committee has representatives from Duke (ACC, committee chair), Kentucky (SEC), Southland Conference, Southwestern Athletic Conference, Atlantic 10 Conference, Toledo (MAC), Northwestern (B1G), Iowa State (Big 12), Bradley (Missouri Valley Conference), Mountain West Conference.

The conferences not represented on the men's selection committee?
Pac-12

Having a Pac-12 member on the committee would not help us.  The member would have to leave the room when P-12 schools are being discussed.  From the NCAA's tourney webpage:

Conference representatives cannot be in the room when teams from their conference are being discussed for inclusion, nor are they allowed to vote for them. Same goes for a school representative, who cannot participate in or vote for their own school.

Committee members are assigned to conferences to monitor play throughout the season.

[burger]

Also, I note that the 10-member selection committee has representatives from Duke (ACC, committee chair), Kentucky (SEC), Southland Conference, Southwestern Athletic Conference, Atlantic 10 Conference, Toledo (MAC), Northwestern (B1G), Iowa State (Big 12), Bradley (Missouri Valley Conference), Mountain West Conference.

The conferences not represented on the men's selection committee?
Pac-12

Having a Pac-12 member on the committee would not help us.  The member would have to leave the room when P-12 schools are being discussed.  From the NCAA's tourney webpage:

Conference representatives cannot be in the room when teams from their conference are being discussed for inclusion, nor are they allowed to vote for them. Same goes for a school representative, who cannot participate in or vote for their own school.

Committee members are assigned to conferences to monitor play throughout the season.

[lex24]

Also, I note that the 10-member selection committee has representatives from Duke (ACC, committee chair), Kentucky (SEC), Southland Conference, Southwestern Athletic Conference, Atlantic 10 Conference, Toledo (MAC), Northwestern (B1G), Iowa State (Big 12), Bradley (Missouri Valley Conference), Mountain West Conference.

The conferences not represented on the men's selection committee?
Pac-12

Having a Pac-12 member on the committee would not help us.  The member would have to leave the room when P-12 schools are being discussed.  From the NCAA's tourney webpage:

Conference representatives cannot be in the room when teams from their conference are being discussed for inclusion, nor are they allowed to vote for them. Same goes for a school representative, who cannot participate in or vote for their own school.

Committee members are assigned to conferences to monitor play throughout the season.

Well, that doesn’t stop someone from lowering a teams ranking from another conference in hopes of greater representation for his/her conference.  The Pac-12 is the only major conference not represented. Thanks again, Larry.  Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

[lex24]

Also, I note that the 10-member selection committee has representatives from Duke (ACC, committee chair), Kentucky (SEC), Southland Conference, Southwestern Athletic Conference, Atlantic 10 Conference, Toledo (MAC), Northwestern (B1G), Iowa State (Big 12), Bradley (Missouri Valley Conference), Mountain West Conference.

The conferences not represented on the men's selection committee?
Pac-12

Having a Pac-12 member on the committee would not help us.  The member would have to leave the room when P-12 schools are being discussed.  From the NCAA's tourney webpage:

Conference representatives cannot be in the room when teams from their conference are being discussed for inclusion, nor are they allowed to vote for them. Same goes for a school representative, who cannot participate in or vote for their own school.

Committee members are assigned to conferences to monitor play throughout the season.

Well, that doesn’t stop someone from lowering a teams ranking from another conference in hopes of greater representation for his/her conference.  The Pac-12 is the only major conference not represented. Thanks again, Larry.  Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

[Papa John]

I'm with lex24 on this. Just because a conference rep leaves the room doesn't mean that his/her presence on the committee won't affect the discussion of said conference's teams. I'm not saying that there's quid pro quo or backroom deals going on, but there could be more subconscious effects. In the words of John Heywood: Out of sight, out of mind.

[Papa John]

I'm with lex24 on this. Just because a conference rep leaves the room doesn't mean that his/her presence on the committee won't affect the discussion of said conference's teams. I'm not saying that there's quid pro quo or backroom deals going on, but there could be more subconscious effects. In the words of John Heywood: Out of sight, out of mind.

[Spiny_Norman]

Bernard Muir was on the NCAA Men's Basketball committee from 2012 to 2019, serving as the chair in 2019. Unfortunately, this was not a period where he had to step out of the room very often for Stanford discussions.

I guess when he termed out that they did not replace him with another P12 rep.

[Spiny_Norman]

Bernard Muir was on the NCAA Men's Basketball committee from 2012 to 2019, serving as the chair in 2019. Unfortunately, this was not a period where he had to step out of the room very often for Stanford discussions.

I guess when he termed out that they did not replace him with another P12 rep.