NCAA Tournament Bubble Watch 2022: What will it take to reach March Madness?

The 2022 NCAA Tournament is approaching. Our bubble watch dives into what teams need to do to prove they belong as a tournament team.

Bracketology and resume analysis are key parts of the final weeks leading up to the NCAA Tournament. There is no easy way to guarantee that bracketologists will accurately project the field, but the vast majority correctly predict at least 65 of the 68 teams that actually dance each year. Determining the bubble is always tricky, but why not give it a go?

This Bubble Watch page will dive into each bubble team unsure of its positioning. The piece includes categorizing each team into where they belong on the bubble as well as individual breakdowns of their resumes and what they need to do from this point forward. For those who have not followed my Bubble Watch in prior years, here is a breakdown of the categories and their meanings:

To fast-forward to a specific conference, click here:

—Tournament Index: March Madness 2022 predictions, Cinderellas
—College basketball’s best down-transfers
—DPI: Game Predictions | Team Grades | Player Rankings

Metrics and resumes are current through the morning of March 11, 2022.

Atlantic Coast

Lead pipe lock: Duke, North Carolina
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: Miami (FL)
Double the deodorant: Wake Forest, Notre Dame, Virginia Tech

Miami (FL) Hurricanes
NET: 63, Resume: 35.5, Quality: 61.3
Q1: 5-1 | Q2: 4-5 | Q3: 9-3 | Q4: 5-0

Miami is one of the most interesting bubble cases this season. The Hurricanes rate quite well compared to their bubble compadres with regard to their resume metrics and top-end results. Most notably, they have an average of 35.5 in KPI/SOR and own an impressive 5-1 record in Quad-1 (3-0 in Q1A). With that said, though, there are a lot of downsides to their overall team sheet. Miami averages in the 60s across predictive metrics with a low NET ranking (No. 63) as well, and it has suffered a trio of losses in Quad-3.

The selection committee has shown a preference to rely on resumes more for selection compared to predictive numbers for seeding. That thought process leads to a solid placement for Miami. The Hurricanes earned a No. 10 seed in my most recent bracketology. There does appear to be some gap between them and the cutline, but this is dependent on precedent.

If the committee moves away from favoring resume metrics for selection this year, the Hurricanes might be in more danger than bracketologists currently believe. A win over Boston College — albeit in overtime — may have clinched the bid.

Notre Dame Fighting Irish
NET: 53, Resume: 50.0, Quality: 52.7
Q1: 3-7 | Q2: 1-2 | Q3: 11-1 | Q4: 6-0

Notre Dame was able to take care of business in a must-win game at home against Pittsburgh to close its regular season. That victory did not help solidify the Irish’s positioning in the field, though. The Fighting Irish’s team sheet leaves much to be desired even for a 20-plus win ACC team. They are just 4-9 in Q1+2 games and have a Quad-3 loss on their resume. Additionally, all but one of their team sheet metrics rank outside of the top 50.

Notre Dame’s team sheet does not feature many items that stand out. Rutgers, for instance, has superb top-tier wins while teams like VCU and Davidson can boast strong resume metrics. The Irish – as well as SMU – simply ooze bubbliciousness throughout their resume; they both have one elite win (Notre Dame over Kentucky; SMU over Houston).

A loss to Virginia Tech in the ACC Tournament did not help matters. Notre Dame remains in my projected field, but only barely. The Irish will be sweating out Selection Sunday in a big way.

Wake Forest Demon Deacons
NET: 45, Resume: 57.0, Quality: 40.3
Q1: 2-4 | Q2: 3-3 | Q3: 9-2 | Q4: 9-0

Losing to Boston College in its first game of the ACC Tournament was not Wake Forest’s best idea. The defeat qualified as a Quad-3 loss, their second of the year, and the Demon Deacons are going to be sweating out the rest of the weekend in a big way. They hold a strong 23-9 record but there is not much about their team sheet that stands out.

Wake is only 2-4 in Quad-1 games and played the 341st-rated nonconference schedule. That lack of out-of-conference challenges could be their undoing when the committee finally settles on its 68. The Demon Deacons were also just 5-5 on the road. Wake Forest fell out of my most recent field. The Deacons need help from other teams — and a strong committee opinion of them — to dance.

Virginia Tech Hokies
NET: 33, Resume: 59.5, Quality: 27.7
Q1: 1-6 | Q2: 6-4 | Q3: 7-2 | Q4: 7-0

Virginia Tech’s at-large future hinges on whether or not it can improve its resume metrics and quadrant records. That might seem like extremely rudimentary analysis, but the fact is that the Hokies already boast awesome quality metrics. They rank 33rd in the NET, with an average ranking of 27.7 across KenPom, BPI and Sagarin. Their resume metrics (59.5 average) still lag behind.

Every team with top-30 quality metrics over the last two NCAA Tournaments has earned an at-large bid. However, nobody has earned an at-large bid with resume metrics worse than 52.5. So, the Hokies would be an anomaly either way. With that said, Virginia Tech sits in my Next Four Out with a lot of work to do in the ACC Tournament in order to crack the at-large field. The Hokies are just 7-10 in Q1+2 games with a pair of Quad-3 losses.

Virginia Tech used some Darius Maddox heroics to win its opening-round game of the ACC Tournament, then knocked off Notre Dame. The Hokies face North Carolina today as their quest continues.

Big 12

Lead pipe lock: Baylor, Kansas, Texas Tech, Texas, Iowa State, TCU
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: None
Double the deodorant: Oklahoma

Oklahoma Sooners
NET: 38, Resume: 46.0, Quality: 33.7
Q1: 4-11 | Q2: 6-2 | Q3: 2-1 | Q4: 6-0

Just when I thought it was time for Oklahoma to leave the Bubble Watch for good, the team responds by winning four straight games over Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Kansas State and Baylor. The final of these came in the Big 12 Tournament and gave them an elite win as well as improved their record to 18-14.

Oklahoma is 10-13 in Q1+2 this season with plus quality metrics (33.7 average rank). The Sooners have climbed in a hurry but they might still need one more win. The Baylor win was a darn good place to start.

They are now on the right side of the cutline with an opportunity to move into safer positioning with a matchup against Texas Tech. A loss would send them to the grocery store for deodorant.

Big East

Lead pipe lock: Villanova, Providence, UConn, Seton Hall
Firmly in the field: Marquette
Some perspiration: Creighton
Double the deodorant: Xavier

Marquette Golden Eagles
NET: 42, Resume: 39.5, Quality: 49.0
Q1: 6-7 | Q2: 4-5 | Q3: 4-0 | Q4: 5-0

Marquette has lost six of its last ten games, with each of those defeats coming on the road or neutral site — including two to NET sub-100 opponents. The skid comes on the heels of a seven-game win streak. The Golden Eagles are still in decent positioning overall, even though they have dropped several seed lines compared to earlier in the year. Shaka Smart’s team can still boast six Quad-1 wins and solid metrics across the board.

The Golden Eagles needed to beat St. John’s at home in their regular-season finale in order to remain “firmly in the field” and they were able to do just that. Even with the BET loss to Creighton, Marquette should safely dance. The Golden Eagles are currently projected as a No. 9 seed in my bracketology.

Creighton Bluejays
NET: 64, Resume: 32.5, Quality: 66.7
Q1: 6-5 | Q2: 4-4 | Q3: 6-1 | Q4: 5-0

Creighton has won eight of their past ten games, though four of those victories were over Georgetown (twice), Butler and DePaul — wins that just do not move the needle much. However, the Bluejays’ recent home victory over UConn without Ryan Nembhard was tremendous and has put them in a pretty good position to earn a bid, even with a home loss to Seton Hall in their season finale.

The Bluejays have six Quad-1 wins, which is a tremendous feather in their cap compared to the rest of the bubble. However, they also have a Quad-3 loss hurting their team sheet. Creighton’s resume metrics rank in the upper-30s — well above most of the bubble — but feature some of the worst quality metrics (low-60s) among all at-large contenders.

The Bluejays are sitting on my No. 10 seed line after beating Marquette in the Big East Tournament; their selection for the field should be secure.

Ryan Nembhard’s injury should not impact whether Creighton is selected as an at-large team or not. That decision should be dependent on their resume. However, it is possible that the committee might dock them a seed line or two (think Kenyon Martin) due to his absence. While losing Nembhard certainly hurts, they proved against UConn that they can win without him.

Xavier Musketeers
NET: 40, Resume: 54.0, Quality: 48.3
Q1: 5-9 | Q2: 4-2 | Q3: 4-2 | Q4: 5-0

Xavier has lost eight of its last ten games – one of those wins coming over Georgetown at home – and its at-large hopes are slipping in a hurry. Home losses to DePaul and St. John’s certainly are not helping the Musketeers’ position — and they are now stumbling down the stretch for the third consecutive season. Unlike the late-season struggles of the past few seasons, Xavier built a larger margin for error in the earlier portion of the campaign this time around.

Still, the Musketeers have burned up all of that goodwill. Losing to Butler in the opening round of the Big East Tournament was not advisable, yet the Musketeers dropped that game despite having plenty of chances to put it away. Xavier is still on the right side of my projected cutline but as my second-to-last team in. There are lots of teams potentially in the mix to jump them as the weekend progresses.

Xavier will be sweating out Sunday in a big way. The Musketeers’ metrics have fallen into serious bubbliciousness and they now have a pair of Quad-3 losses. Xavier is just 13-13 against the upper three quadrants.

Big Ten

Lead pipe lock: Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan State
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: None
Double the deodorant: Michigan, Rutgers, Indiana

Michigan Wolverines
NET: 34, Resume: 41.0, Quality: 29.0
Q1: 5-10 | Q2: 3-3 | Q3: 6-1 | Q4: 3-0

Michigan continues to flirt with the bubble as it has alternated wins and losses over its last ten games (5-5 overall record). Are they playing their way in or their way out? It’s impossible to say!

The Wolverines’ most-recent game was a loss to Indiana in which they blew a massive lead at the Big Ten Tournament. They have now fallen to 17-14, and the track record for teams with such a poor winning percentage is not great.

Yet, the Wolverines rank in the top 40 in all but one team sheet metric, as well as the NET. They are just 8-13 in Q1+2 games with a Quad-3 loss on their resume. They are exactly .500 in all games outside of Quad-4. Michigan is currently slotted as a No. 11 seed in my bracketology, but it is not safe.

Rutgers Scarlet Knights
NET: 77, Resume: 55.0, Quality: 67.7
Q1: 6-5 | Q2: 3-4 | Q3: 4-2 | Q4: 5-1

Rutgers won the biggest “bubble battle” of the last week when it went on the road and took down Indiana behind Ron Harper Jr.’s heroics. The team followed that up by beating Penn State at home. The Scarlet Knights own six Quad-1 wins, which is a big number compared to the rest of the bubble. Their sheer ability to win big games, which includes four Quad-1A victories, has them in the at-large mix. However, bad losses and poor metrics continue to drag down their potential.

The Scarlet Knights have suffered three losses in the bottom two quadrants this season. Additionally, their NET (No. 77) and quality metrics (67.7) sit behind the rest of the bubble. Even their resume metrics are not particularly complimentary towards earning a bid. Rutgers’ total body of work sits right around the cutline. They have a very polarizing team sheet that makes it easy to make a case to be in the field or a case to be excluded.

A combination of three bad losses, the 297th-rated nonconference strength of schedule, and a 4-9 road record is keeping the Scarlet Knights out of my field, though there is certainly an argument for them to be included.

Rutgers is my second team out right now, but there are certainly reasons for why they might be included in any other bracketologist’s field. The Scarlet Knights probably need at least one win in the Big Ten Tournament for their at-large candidacy. With how low their metrics are compared to the rest of the bubble, they will be an interesting team to monitor with regard to how the committee evaluates teams.

Indiana Hoosiers
NET: 41, Resume: 56.0, Quality: 36.3
Q1: 3-7 | Q2: 4-4 | Q3: 5-1 | Q4: 7-0

Indiana kept its at-large hopes alive with a come-from-behind victory over Michigan in the Big Ten Tournament. While that was an emotional victory, it did not lead to the Hoosiers rejoining my projected field. Their predictive metrics are quite strong but are not highly regarded by resume numbers. Additionally, they are only 12-12 against the upper three quadrants with just one Q1A win. Indiana faces Illinois on Friday, and a win would likely propel them into the field. A loss and they will be sweating out Sunday in a big way.

Pacific 12

Lead pipe lock: Arizona, UCLA, USC
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: None
Double the deodorant: Colorado

Colorado Buffaloes
NET: 70, Resume, 61.0, Quality: 71.3
Q1: 1-5 | Q2: 6-2 | Q3: 5-3 | Q4: 9-0

Colorado cracked the bubble watch due to decent metrics and a nice collection of quality wins. The Buffaloes are 7-7 across the upper two quadrants. They still have a lot of work to do to make an at-large push, but they have the opportunity in front of them. Colorado is on the outskirts of the at-large conversation right now, but a win over Arizona on Friday might change things. That’s a game to watch.

Southeastern

Lead pipe lock: Auburn, LSU, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: None
Double the deodorant: Texas A&M, Florida

Texas A&M Aggies
NET: 55, Resume: 58.0, Quality: 55.3
Q1: 2-9 | Q2: 5-0 | Q3: 5-2 | Q4: 8-0

Is Texas A&M a longshot to earn an at-large bid? Yes, but the Aggies have been welcomed back to the Bubble Watch thanks to an impressive finish to the season. They have won six of their last seven games – including a road victory over Alabama – after having previously lost eight in a row. This has truly been a tale of three seasons for Texas A&M:

First 17 games: 15-2 (4-0 SEC) record
Next 8 games: 0-8 (0-8 SEC) record
Final 7 games: 6-1 (6-1 SEC) record

Texas A&M regained its mojo just at the right time to remain still in the at-large mix. The Aggies are my seventh team out right now, though, and still have a lot of work to do in the SEC Tournament. A win over Florida was a great start, and now they have to beat Auburn — if they do, they will be an interesting bubble case.

Florida Gators
NET: 58, Resume: 63.0, Quality: 45.0
Q1: 3-9 | Q2: 4-3 | Q3: 5-0 | Q4: 7-1

Florida lost to Texas A&M in the SEC Tournament. At this point, it would be a major surprise if the Gators were awarded an at-large bid. Their quality metrics are good but the rest of their resume lags far behind. The Gators are only 12-12 in the top three quadrants with a Quad-4 loss; their resume metrics are sub-60. Dancing would be a surprise.

American

Lead pipe lock: Houston
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: Memphis
Double the deodorant: SMU

Memphis Tigers
NET: 35, Resume: 42.0, Quality: 26.7
Q1: 4-3 | Q2: 3-4 | Q3: 7-2 | Q4: 5-0

North Carolina may have been the biggest bubble winner of this past weekend, but Memphis was not far behind. The Tigers completed their season sweep of Houston with a 14-point home win that has them into much safer positioning for at-large selection. Memphis is now a projected No. 10 seed in my bracketology with some margin for error in the AAC Tournament.

The Tigers are up to 7-7 in Q1+2 games (2-0 in Q1A) but also have a pair of Quad-3 losses. Their quality (now 26.0) and resume metrics (now 41.0) both jumped significantly over the past week and make it hard to imagine them falling out of the field. One win in the AAC Tournament should lock up a bid, though they might already be there after the Houston win. The Tigers have won 10 of their last 11 games and are trending in the right direction. Nobody will want to see Memphis as its potential first- or second-round matchup.

SMU Mustangs
NET: 48, Resume: 41.0, Quality: 49.7
Q1: 2-1 | Q2: 4-4 | Q3: 9-1 | Q4: 7-1

SMU held steady at home during this past week with victories over Cincinnati and Tulane. However, neither of those victories did much for the Mustangs’ resume, and only winning by single digits in each game meant that they did not improve their quality metrics. SMU remains the absolute definition of a bubble team this year: all but one metric ranks between 40-50 nationally, they are 6-5 in Q1+2 games, and have two losses in the bottom two quadrants.

There isn’t much about SMU’s team sheet that stands out, which is both a good and bad thing. On the plus side, the Mustangs would be a “safe” choice for an at-large by the committee because they check a lot of boxes even if they do not exceed expectations in any one category. Conversely, the Mustangs have not separated themselves from the pack in any area and could be left out in favor of a team with either better wins (Ex. Rutgers) or better resume metrics (Ex. VCU).

First and foremost, SMU needs to play well in the AAC Tournament. If the Mustangs does not win at least one game there, then this conversation probably becomes moot. For now, though, you won’t find many more bubblicious team in the country.

Xavier and Wake Forest both helped SMU’s case this week so far.

Atlantic 10

Lead pipe lock: None
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: Davidson
Double the deodorant: VCU, Dayton

Davidson Wildcats
NET: 46, Resume: 37.0, Quality: 54.7
Q1: 2-2 | Q2: 3-2 | Q3: 8-1 | Q4: 11-0

Davidson is one of the mid-major at-large contenders that I think is in better positioning for selection than it is for seeding. This thought is rooted in how Davidson’s metrics are shaping up to this point in the year. The Wildcats rank in the top 40 in both KPI and SOR — which are the two primary resume metrics — compared to sitting outside of the top 50 in two of three predictive metrics. Their opportunities for quality wins are limited relative to high-major teams, but Davidson has a similar number of Q1+2 wins (five) as some of the high-majors on the bubble.

Davidson earned a No. 11 seed in our latest bracketology field after a disappointing loss to Dayton in its regular-season finale. The Wildcats are not quite in safe positioning, though losses by Wake Forest and Xavier have made their position less precarious. I think that one victory should move the Wildcats up to “safely in the field.” Davidson will face the winner of Fordham on Friday.

VCU Rams
NET: 51, Resume: 30.5, Quality: 55.7
Q1: 3-3 | Q2: 3-4 | Q3: 11-1 | Q4: 4-0

VCU needed to boost its quality metrics, and it was able to do that in a blowout home win over St. Bonaventure last week. The Rams ranked sub-60 in all three quality metrics a week ago; they are now averaging 55.7 across those same numbers. Their resume metrics (30.5 average) remain elite compared to the rest of the bubble even with a loss to Saint Louis in their regular-season finale.

They are on the outside looking in for many bracketologists, especially after the recent loss, though I think they still have a strong argument for inclusion. VCU is without a Q1A win but is 6-7 in Q1+2 games and only has one loss in Quad-3. The Rams are way better across resume metrics and most quadrant records than the rest of the bubble. A 17-8 record across the top three quadrants, as well as the 63rd-toughest nonconference strength of schedule, is on their side.

The loss to Saint Louis was certainly a blow, though, and VCU needs to play well in the Atlantic 10 Tournament to remain an at-large contender. Nobody has missed the last two NCAA Tournaments with resume metrics better than 36.0 – VCU is currently at 30.5. Losses by Wake Forest and Xavier helped the Rams; furthermore, Vanderbilt moved into the NET top 75, giving VCU another Quad-1 win.

Additionally, how much will the committee look into VCU’s stark difference in play with and without Ace Baldwin? That is a critical question when evaluating the Rams. Baldwin missed VCU’s first eight games with injury, and the team went 4-4. The Rams are 17-4 since he returned to action.

Dayton Flyers
NET: 52, Resume: 58.0, Quality: 47.7
Q1: 2-2 | Q2: 6-3 | Q3: 5-1 | Q4: 9-3

Nobody has made the tournament as an at-large in the NET era with four losses in the bottom two quadrants. Yet, Dayton is trying its best to test the committee in that department. The Flyers are 8-5 in Q1+2 games and their metrics are in better shape than a similar bubble team like Rutgers. Dayton ranks in the mid-50s in resume metrics – which is below at-large teams – and in the top 50 of quality metrics. The Flyers do not have a team sheet that warrants at-large inclusion right now, but they are close enough that making the Atlantic 10 title game will make them very interesting.

I think Dayton is behind both Davidson and VCU in terms of at-large potential from the A10, but the team isn’t quite out of the mix. The Flyers’ nonconference wins over Kansas and Miami (FL) will count as wins over the field. They also have head-to-head victories over Virginia Tech and Davidson that might play a role depending on how this week plays out. Dayton has work to do but deserved to return to the bubble watch after beating Richmond on the road and Davidson at home. Dayton is one of my first teams out.

Mountain West

Lead pipe lock: Colorado State, Boise State, San Diego State
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: Wyoming
Double the deodorant: None

Wyoming Cowboys
NET: 44, Resume: 43.0, Quality: 79.0
Q1: 3-4 | Q2: 8-1 | Q3: 3-2 | Q4: 10-0

Wyoming stumbled down the stretch, winning just three of its last seven regular-season games, but may have clinched an NCAA Tournament bid with a victory over UNLV in the MWC Tournament. Wyoming is currently a projected No. 11 seed following the win and there are no bad losses left in the MWC.

An 11-5 record in Q1+2 games is extremely impressive. However, they have a pair of Quad-3 losses on their resume and their quality metrics are seriously lagging behind. Wyoming’s resume numbers are congruent with a tournament team, but ranking at 105th in BPI and 84th in Sagarin are killers. Cowboys would easily have the worst quality metric average among at-large teams, but their collection of Q1+2 wins is so good. The Cowboys should dance.

West Coast

Lead pipe lock: Gonzaga, Saint Mary’s, San Francisco
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: None
Double the deodorant: BYU

BYU Cougars
NET: 54, Resume: 57.0, Quality: 60.7
Q1: 4-6 | Q2: 3-3 | Q3: 3-0 | Q4: 10-1

BYU has played its last game before Selection Sunday. The Cougars probably needed to beat San Francisco in the WCC Tournament in order to dance, and they were unable to make that happen. BYU is still among my first eight teams out, so it remains in the bubble watch, but the best it can do right now is hope. The Cougars rank 57.0 in resume metrics and 60.7 in quality – neither of those screams at-large-worthy. A Quad-4 loss crushes their team sheet as well. An NCAA Tournament berth would be a surprise at this point.

Others

Lead pipe lock: Murray State, Loyola Chicago, Longwood, Chattanooga, Georgia State, Jacksonville State, Bryant, Wright State, South Dakota State, Colgate
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: None
Double the deodorant: North Texas

North Texas Mean Green
NET: 39, Resume: 44.5, Quality: 58.3
Q1: 1-1 | Q2: 5-2 | Q3: 5-2 | Q4: 11-0

North Texas may have dashed its at-large hopes with a road loss to UTEP in its regular-season finale. That defeat marked the Mean Green’s first road loss of the whole season (previously 9-0) and is a prime example of the razor-thin margin for at-large mid-major contenders. North Texas is the No. 1 seed at the CUSA Tournament and its best bet for an NCAA Tournament is to win the event. If they lose in the championship game, here is their at-large case:

North Texas rates in the top 50 in four of the six team sheet metrics. They are 6-3 in Q1+2, have a very solid record, and have been excellent on the road. The committee values the total body of work, but perhaps it will notice that three of UNT’s five losses came in its first four games. The Mean Green clearly figured themselves out, though those losses will likely haunt their at-large case.

Considering the committee has a tendency to favor resumes over predictive metrics for selection (and the opposite is true for seeding), UNT’s at-large hopes might not be lost. Making at least the CUSA Tournament title game is mandatory, though.