the only ranking that really matters. harsh.

I don't see anything that indicates the difference between these teams that determines their rank. Is there some overall metric that doesn't show such that you can see the point (for lack of a better term) differentials?

At this point, no ranking matters. With the parity outside of the first 5 - 7 teams, it is a bunch of musical chairs. And with teams just now getting into conference play after many playing cupcake after cupcake a lot of volatility is yet to come.

You would think 3 Quad 1 wins would get us a little higher.

blackie said:

---

I don't see anything that indicates the difference between these teams that determines their rank. Is there some overall metric that doesn't show such that you can see the point (for lack of a better term) differentials?

At this point, no ranking matters. With the parity outside of the first 5 - 7 teams, it is a bunch of musical chairs. And with teams just now getting into conference play after many playing cupcake after cupcake a lot of volatility is yet to come.

---

The TVI (team value index) for Baylor will be terrible for Neutral Court against Tier 1 opponents given the Texas and Iowa games. Also the adjusted net efficiency rating will be low due to the big loss margins combined with small margins of victory. Some of those negatives will get diminished by growth in the number of Road Tier 1 games but it sure would help to blow the doors off a few teams on the road. The NET jokes about not considering margin of Victory but efficiency ratings basically bake the results straight into the cake (adjusted for pace of play).

Takeaway, it is a tough road to reach hosting status (Top 16) with even two more losses. Even one loss and the wins being close is a problem.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

blackie said:

---

I don't see anything that indicates the difference between these teams that determines their rank. Is there some overall metric that doesn't show such that you can see the point (for lack of a better term) differentials?

At this point, no ranking matters. With the parity outside of the first 5 - 7 teams, it is a bunch of musical chairs. And with teams just now getting into conference play after many playing cupcake after cupcake a lot of volatility is yet to come.

---

The TVI (team value index) for Baylor will be terrible for Neutral Court against Tier 1 opponents given the Texas and Iowa games. Also the adjusted net efficiency rating will be low due to the big loss margins combined with small margins of victory. Some of those negatives will get diminished by growth in the number of Road Tier 1 games but it sure would help to blow the doors off a few teams on the road. The NET jokes about not considering margin of Victory but efficiency ratings basically bake the results straight into the cake (adjusted for pace of play).

Takeaway, it is a tough road to reach hosting status (Top 16) with even two more losses. Even one loss and the wins being close is a problem.

---

I don't discount what you are saying as far as how it is determined, but what I am missing is something that says how far apart are these teams. You could have 10 or 15 teams grouped very close together separated by fractions such that even a small change could bump up or lower a team significantly in relation to those around it.

In the polls you see a number of votes and with that you can get some idea of how close or far away a team is from others. Here I don't see a value that represents how far away a team is from surpassing or dropping below others.

blackie said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

blackie said:

---

I don't see anything that indicates the difference between these teams that determines their rank. Is there some overall metric that doesn't show such that you can see the point (for lack of a better term) differentials?

At this point, no ranking matters. With the parity outside of the first 5 - 7 teams, it is a bunch of musical chairs. And with teams just now getting into conference play after many playing cupcake after cupcake a lot of volatility is yet to come.

---

The TVI (team value index) for Baylor will be terrible for Neutral Court against Tier 1 opponents given the Texas and Iowa games. Also the adjusted net efficiency rating will be low due to the big loss margins combined with small margins of victory. Some of those negatives will get diminished by growth in the number of Road Tier 1 games but it sure would help to blow the doors off a few teams on the road. The NET jokes about not considering margin of Victory but efficiency ratings basically bake the results straight into the cake (adjusted for pace of play).

Takeaway, it is a tough road to reach hosting status (Top 16) with even two more losses. Even one loss and the wins being close is a problem.

---

I don't discount what you are saying as far as how it is determined, but what I am missing is something that says how far apart are these teams. You could have 10 or 15 teams grouped very close together separated by fractions such that even a small change could bump up or lower a team significantly in relation to those around it.

In the polls you see a number of votes and with that you can get some idea of how close or far away a team is from others. Here I don't see a value that represents how far away a team is from surpassing or dropping below others.

---

You won't see numerical values because they aren't published. The NCAA also doesn't publish the algorithm used.

What you can see is relative rankings. That info is basically sufficient to derive solid opinions.
Current slotting & future games against teams ranked higher (and how much higher) & future games against teams ranked lower (and how much lower).

Baylor has four remaining games against higher ranked teams and nine games remaining against lower ranked teams. Fortunately three of the four higher ranked team games are road games. On the other hand, games against Cincinnati, Houston, UCF & Arizona are killer……zero upside. Road games against Utah & BYU will be Quad 1 and thus can help. But home games against teams like Arizona State and K State only have value if they can climb a few spots in rankings.

Basically, our remaining schedule isn't of the quality where simply winning most remaining games will help enough to rise 13 spots needed to host. The team needs to significantly improve the TVI component. And that means no more close wins…..need to destroy a few teams on the scoreboard. Otherwise we are likely at the mercy of teams ranked above imploding or a couple middle of the middle pack B12 teams climbing a few slots. It will be hard to climb over SEC or Big Ten teams that win 80-85+% of their remaining games. The crappy teams in the B12 are a huge anchor dragging the conference down.

This week we are #27 after road wins over Utah and BYU while ranked #14 in AP??

Bearinit said:

---

This week we are #27 after road wins over Utah and BYU while ranked #14 in AP??

---

And games against UCF & UH this week will damage the SOS.
The OOC losses by B12 teams to poor opponents is killer as those bad opponents are now losing in conference play to other bad teams.

Fortunately the schedule is slightly backloaded. But reaching the Top 16 to host is a long road. Can't imagine the committee helping out the B12 by elevating teams above their NET rankings. The conference has sucked.

ECBear said:

---

The NCAA also implemented the Wins Above Bubble (WAB) metric this season as one of its tournament ranking criteria. We are currently #7 in those rankings. It is unknown how much weight will be given to this metric when compared to NET and the other criteria used by the Selection Committee. But it is new this season and is out there.

---

Can you explain what WAB is?

blackie said:

---

ECBear said:

---

The NCAA also implemented the Wins Above Bubble (WAB) metric this season as one of its tournament ranking criteria. We are currently #7 in those rankings. It is unknown how much weight will be given to this metric when compared to NET and the other criteria used by the Selection Committee. But it is new this season and is out there.

---

Can you explain what WAB is?

---

Not very well. But this is what the NCAA has on its website:

Wins Above Bubble, a new metric for the 2024-25 season, shows how many more, or fewer, wins a team has against its schedule versus what a bubble team would expect to have against the same schedule.

I then found this in a USA Today article:

WAB breaks down into the amount of wins you have minus the amount of wins an average bubble team would expect to have versus your schedule. That bubble team has been set as the No. 45 team in the current NET ratings based on past data analysis. Seth Burn, a professional gambler, is viewed as the first to conceive of WAB as a metric for rating college basketball teams in 2015, with Torvik popularizing the metric in recent years by incorporating it into his ratings.
"It's kind of taking win-loss and adjusting for schedule," Alok Pattani, a data science developer for Google who helped create the NET and the NCAA's version of WAB, told NCAA.com. "We talk a lot about strength of schedule, which is important. This is how did you do against that schedule. ... I think wins (above) bubble is a really good advancement to work around some of

I (no pun intended) prefer the EBT ( EyeBall Test). According to the EBT system Bayor looks like a top 16 team. We will SEE (Seeing Everything Equally ) how it all PANS out. (Perception Awareness Natuarly Shows ).

These rankings make little sense: tames playing only 1-2 Quad 1 teams by now should not be anywhere near the top of this list. Same with the teams with fewer Quad 1 wins, more losses than wins, or any Quad 2 losses. At first blush it looks like the NCAA has been polluted by SEC & Big 10 hype as much as football with several of their teams being favored for reasons other than their records (OU, Vandy, Minnesota, etc).

We definitely should be ahead of Duke considering we have a better record by multiple metrics and the head to head.

I think we're getting too far into the weeds.

As of this moment, Charlie Creme has us slotted as a #4 seed.

If we win the regular season title - which should have been our goal from day one - then you can throw away the metrics at that point, because a P4 regular season champion will almost assuredly host.

And even if we don't finish in the Top 16, that might not be the worst thing in the world, seeing that CNC has managed to lose both second round games she's been a part of on our homecourt.

At the end of the day, our tournament success will likely come down to matchups - which we have no control over, unfortunately.

So we should just control what we can - win the conference title - and let the rest sort itself out.

ECBear said:

---

blackie said:

---

ECBear said:

---

The NCAA also implemented the Wins Above Bubble (WAB) metric this season as one of its tournament ranking criteria. We are currently #7 in those rankings. It is unknown how much weight will be given to this metric when compared to NET and the other criteria used by the Selection Committee. But it is new this season and is out there.

---

Can you explain what WAB is?

---

Not very well. But this is what the NCAA has on its website:

Wins Above Bubble, a new metric for the 2024-25 season, shows how many more, or fewer, wins a team has against its schedule versus what a bubble team would expect to have against the same schedule.

I then found this in a USA Today article:

WAB breaks down into the amount of wins you have minus the amount of wins an average bubble team would expect to have versus your schedule. That bubble team has been set as the No. 45 team in the current NET ratings based on past data analysis. Seth Burn, a professional gambler, is viewed as the first to conceive of WAB as a metric for rating college basketball teams in 2015, with Torvik popularizing the metric in recent years by incorporating it into his ratings.
"It's kind of taking win-loss and adjusting for schedule," Alok Pattani, a data science developer for Google who helped create the NET and the NCAA's version of WAB, told NCAA.com. "We talk a lot about strength of schedule, which is important. This is how did you do against that schedule. ... I think wins (above) bubble is a really good advancement to work around some of

---

It seems like the NCAA created a new category for them to sue to justify crazy rankings (like those above) with teams that clearly do not deserve it ranked above those that do. I'd rather have a pure statistical, computerized ranking system based strictly on records than anything that looks arbitrary and overly subjective.

Home court is nice (especially for the fans), but for a 4 seed it means you are still up against a team considered by a large number of observers that is just as good as you, especially if you are the last #4 as we were last year. In fact last year, I recall quite a bit of controversy that we got the 4 seed over Ole Miss. We were the 5 against Va. Tech the year before and won that game even though VTech had the home court.

When we were a 1 or 2 seed so many times in years past, we were playing a #8 or #7 seed to get to the SS. The only time I recall when we were not a 1 or 2, we lost to Drake in the second round at home. I think we look back on many of those second round games thinking they were "gimmees", we may forget that we were playing teams clearly less than us. Certainly not the case with a 4 vs 5 game.

If you are a 1 or 2 and the seedings are even halfway correct, you generally can expect to move on to the SS. As a 3, it gets more dicey but I believe the 3 wins the vast majority of the time. But a 4 doesn't mean a lot and 4s often lose their game. Just last year, 3 out of 4 4-seeds (including us) lost to the #5, and the one that did win (Maryland) won only by 3 points over Alabama.

The other factor that may play into 4 seeds not advancing so often is that some teams just seem to play better on the road where there are less distractions because of local activities going on. That may be true of our team this year. They seem to play pretty well on the road.

We have at least 2 opportunities to put TCU behind us.

Kansas State recently defeated Texas Tech and today they lose to Kansas ? Go figure ?

SirBearALot said:

---

Kansas State recently defeated Texas Tech and today they lose to Kansas ? Go figure ?

---

Beyond the few truly elite teams, it is parity. Beyond those few elite, the next 20-35 or so just play musical chairs with each other.

blackie said:

---

SirBearALot said:

---

Kansas State recently defeated Texas Tech and today they lose to Kansas ? Go figure ?

---

Beyond the few truly elite teams, it is parity. Beyond those few elite, the next 20-35 or so just play musical chairs with each other.

---

Jeff Mittie gives an update on Tess Heal.

She is out for the time with K-State due to an NCAA violation, likely in part due to signing a pro contract in Australia.#KState pic.twitter.com/FezOHgcbR7

— Kole Emplit (@KoleEmplit) January 25, 2026

blackie said:

---

ScottyB_The_Baylor_King said:

---

blackie said:

---

SirBearALot said:

---

Kansas State recently defeated Texas Tech and today they lose to Kansas ? Go figure ?

---

Beyond the few truly elite teams, it is parity. Beyond those few elite, the next 20-35 or so just play musical chairs with each other.

---

Jeff Mittie gives an update on Tess Heal.

She is out for the time with K-State due to an NCAA violation, likely in part due to signing a pro contract in Australia.#KState pic.twitter.com/FezOHgcbR7

— Kole Emplit (@KoleEmplit) January 25, 2026

---

Kind of a joke, isn't it.....signing a "pro" contract gets you a violation. Practically every player on any P4 team is being paid.....and for some, more than they would be on a traditional "pro" team.

---

This has been a known rule. You can't play or declare for a professional sport and retain your NCAA eligibility. It isn't entirely associated with money, but rather with the availability of resources and commitment to the team. NCAA is for student athletes. It is meant for students. The grey area, from what I understand, is that if you played pro overseas, but are not a student at the university and not under an active contract, you are eligible. Though I expect that to be tightened up over the next year or two.

Now that we aren't even pretending NIL isn't pay for play anymore, I have no idea was the purpose of eligibility rules like this accomplish. They are all professional athletes now.

Bone Squad said:

---

Now that we aren't even pretending NIL isn't pay for play anymore, I have no idea was the purpose of eligibility rules like this accomplish. They are all professional athletes now.

---

I would assume travel, resources, time with school. It's also protecting the players. They shouldn't be playing competitive basketball for 12 months out of the year. Their bodies need a break, they need to be taking classes, and they need to learning a coach's system. Especially if the school is basically paying them. With NIL you are being paid to promote the school and bring eyes on it. You leaving for 6 months to go perform other duties I would assume is a conflict. I'd also hate if my player was gone for half the year and not meshing with other players.

bawitdaball said:

---

Bone Squad said:

---

Now that we aren't even pretending NIL isn't pay for play anymore, I have no idea was the purpose of eligibility rules like this accomplish. They are all professional athletes now.

---

I would assume travel, resources, time with school. It's also protecting the players. They shouldn't be playing competitive basketball for 12 months out of the year. Their bodies need a break, they need to be taking classes, and they need to learning a coach's system. Especially if the school is basically paying them. With NIL you are being paid to promote the school and bring eyes on it. You leaving for 6 months to go perform other duties I would assume is a conflict. I'd also hate if my player was gone for half the year and not meshing with other players.

---

Apparently not a concern for Jeff Mittie.

I guess you were seeing things from the NCAA perspective, but " With NIL you are being paid to promote the school and bring eyes on it". They are being paid to play, period. The "NIL" part is just a drop in the ocean.

I agree with the bodies need a break. Likely the reason for so many ACL injuries. Just like youth softball playing tournaments week end and week out all year with pitchers pitching 4 or more games in a weekend. Sure softball pitching is easier on the arm than baseball, but there is a reason why so many pitchers blow out their arm in college.