I was thinking about this with all of the talk about if the committee will dock Alabama, Greg Byrne is on the selection committee. That could be spicy.

AgEng06 said:

---

bobinator said:

---

Yeah I say it like my handle, maybe should change it to WABinator.

---

Ah, going with the long "a" sound. I was going with the short "a", but I don't dislike "net wob" either.

---

Does that make him a wobknob???

bobinator said:

---

I was thinking about this with all of the talk about if the committee will dock Alabama, Greg Byrne is on the selection committee. That could be spicy.

---

Yeah, their WAB is 6.44 now. If they dock then for all their wins with the illegal player, the are still comfortably in the tourney but their seeding would certainly take a good hit.

Appreciate it but Luke does a great job over there with content, plus they have actual player interviews and whatnot. I decided to subscribe this year since Luke has been doing such a great job and it's been worth it. (Despite him not remembering to ask Bucky about challenges today.)

If it has bobinator in the title I read it.

Always insightful

Bob- yeah, i know they werent considering WAB to make the selections, i was curious whether there was somethinhg unique about their schedules/results that would acciunt for their actually being weaker in other metrics than WAB would have predicted.

Guess that would take a deep dive.

I just looked up the 2025 NET rankings pre-tourney and Miss was 25 and Louisville 29, so thise were very close to their seeding.

That was my other guess is they were trying to split the difference on their predictive numbers. Both of them were higher in the WAB than in NET.

Haricougar said:

---

If it has bobinator in the title I read it.

Always insightful

---

I heard that if you want to feel stupider, read the ones without bobinator in the title...

If you think about it, NET WAB is just stripping out the margin of victory and efficiency from NET to convert it to more pure results (ie wins and losses) based metric. So from that you can surmise that if Louisville and Ole Miss were seeded more closely based on NET alone, then what the committee actually did was say they didnt outscore their opponents by enough points or got blown out too hard in some losses.

Yeah, I also think there's still a recency bias even if there's not supposed to be. Ole Miss got straight up nuked a couple of times right at the end of the season.

For Louisville I think their problem was they just didn't beat anyone very good. Their best win heading into conference tournament was a home win against Clemson (who they then beat again in the ACC Tournament.) And then any time they ran up against an SEC opponent they lost. They lost to Oklahoma, Kentucky and got smoked by (fittingly...) Ole Miss.

But I also think trying to apply too much logic to the middle seeds is a fools errand. Every year these dudes spit out some wild stuff between the 5-10 seed lines. I think they spend like 90% of their time worrying about the top 16 teams and the last 6 in the field and just sort of speed run the middle.

yeah jjxv, that's where i was going with that (what i was looking for). thise two kind of stuck out, thiugh admittedly i havent looked at the rpi vs. seed of the other teams. interesting.

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

bobinator said:

---

I was thinking about this with all of the talk about if the committee will dock Alabama, Greg Byrne is on the selection committee. That could be spicy.

---

Yeah, their WAB is 6.44 now. If they dock then for all their wins with the illegal player, the are still comfortably in the tourney but their seeding would certainly take a good hit.

---

I don't think it's fair to the other teams in the bracket to drop bama's seed because of bediako

That would give some higher seeds potentially a much tough matchup than they should have

My biggest gripe with Wins Above Bubble is that a WAB above 0 does not mean you're in the field.

The 52nd best team in NCAA WAB is at +0.2, but would be several spots outside of the field.

At https://t.co/cegyfz8ykZ, a team with a Resume Quality above 0 is in the field ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/FFj2u1K5wS

— Evan Miyakawa (@EvanMiya) February 25, 2026

My man Evan Miya with the same beef I have lol

Isn't that mostly due to auto bids?

No because that's kind of factored into the math. There's usually going to be about 8 auto bids in the top 45 and there's 37 at-large spots.

Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Big East and then right now you have Gonzaga, St Louis, Utah State and Miami Ohio so one more than usual so the theoretical bubble would be at team 46.

I wonder how he rebalances it? Theoretically you could just simply take the 44th or 45th team and subtract their WAB from everyone's score and achieve the goal.

This reads as if his formula just changes the ratings for "average bubble team" depending on the current resumes.

You can read more about the difference between Resume Quality and WAB here: https://t.co/CfsRyGElgb pic.twitter.com/SuvOmfQGxb

— Evan Miyakawa (@EvanMiya) February 25, 2026

So the whole thing shifts depending on where the bubble cutoff is?

Indiana falls from 43 to 48.
Auburn falls from 39 to 42.
St. Louis falls from 30 to 38
New Mexico falls from 47 to 51 - this is a massive blow for UNM

TCU jumps from 49 to 45
Mizzou goes from 42 to 36
UCLA from 38 to 34

USC stays at 46 but loses .4, putting a larger gap betwen them and TCU at #45.

Bob,

How did our WAB go from 1.58 when you wrote the OP Monday to 1.70 today, when we haven't played a game?

Do past games affect it as well?

Also, with Mizzou jumping to 36, does that mean the committee views Mizzou 36 as more 'in' the tourney (further from the bubble) than A&M at 41 ?

Isn't WAB supposed to play into the selections a lot more than say the Net? A&M 42 Mizzou 60

There's two layers here, our NET WAB is 1.59, so it hasn't changed much. The NCAA's official NET WAB is slightly different from the WAB Watch website which is based on different metrics.

But also yes, past games would change your WAB. As the underlying NET for each team changes, so does the game value.

I think it's hard to guess how much the actual ratings play into the seeding. But it is the rating that most accurately reflects the selections. I think that's probably more of a correlation than a causation.

But yes, Missouri's resume metrics are currently better than ours. Evan Miya's machines like them even more, he has their resume quality at #30.

bobinator said:

---

I think it's hard to guess how much the actual ratings play into the seeding. But it is the rating that most accurately reflects the selections. I think that's probably more of a correlation than a causation.

But yes, Missouri's resume metrics are currently better than ours. Evan Miya's machines like them even more, he has their resume quality at #30.

---

Probably because mizzou has more good wins than we do

Tennessee, vandy, Kentucky, Florida, Auburn and A&M

Yeah, no probably about it. That's the difference between a resume metric and a predictive one. Missouri might not be a very efficient team on offense or defense but they have some elite wins. The WAB of just those games alone is about 3.1.

Dang, Mizzou might have the best three wins of the SEC with Florida, Tenn, and Vandy, though Vandy seems Jekyll and Hyde depending on Duke Miles playing or not.

I wonder how many other teams have beaten all 3? Maybe none or maybe 1.

Mizzou seems a little Buzz ball "low ceiling high floor"-like, still surprising to beat both Tenn and Florida at their own game. They also have a couple losses to Ole Miss and LSU (both on the road) that balance out their wins a bit.