Franketology: February 12, 2026
Lukas Harkins and Rocco Miller, two great bracketologists, and Eamonn Brennan, who is at least one of, if not the earliest purveyor of a “Bubble Watch” column (certainly the first I was ever aware of way back in his ESPN days) started a new podcast under Trilly Donovan’s Basket Under Review umbrella, called Bracket Under Review. Very clever. Their first episode discussed some hard-to-evaluate resumes. And frankly, I think there are a lot of those this year. So here’s a few that I find difficult to evaluate at this time:
Miami (OH)
I have made my thoughts on Miami (OH) well-known. They were the subject of conversation in this space a few editions ago, and I’ve tweeted about them as well. I have put my foot down (for now), and have them out of my bracket. They’re not even the auto bid. My rule, since I started doing this in 2023-24, is that predictive metrics are what I use to select auto bids. Logically, that’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Standings are irrelevant, since the regular season champ does not get the auto bid. We’re trying to predict who will win the conference tournament, and for my money, that is best done by predictive metrics. Indeed, sportsbooks will even base their conference tournament odds on the predictive metrics. In the MAC, Akron has the highest predictive metrics average, at 71.00 to Miami (OH)’s 83.33.
Well what about an at-large? I have noted before that last season, in the first season of the NCAA’s version of WAB, everyone in the top-40 that needed it got an at-large bid. 8/10 teams ranked 41-50 got a bid, and no one 50 or worse in WAB got a bid. The two exceptions were 19-13 West Virginia, infamously dinged for the Tucker DeVries injury, despite playing well without him, and 19-13 Indiana. Both teams had NET rankings north of 50. The only team to get in with a NET worse than 50 last year was Drake, NET of 56 on Selection Sunday. However, they sported a 28-3 record, and unlike Miami (OH), had a 2-0 Q1 record and a 4-0 Q2 record. Miami (OH) currently has a NET of 50, and a WAB of 33. So WAB indicates clear inclusion, while the NET tends to indicate “wrong side of the bubble.”
While I understand the committee’s seeming emphasis on resume metrics, I refuse to believe that the committee will reward a team that has not even attempted, let alone won, a Q1 game, and is a mere 2-0 in Q2. I do not care how high the WAB gets, I do not care how high the win total gets. If they do not win the MAC tournament, I would not advocate for their inclusion in the NCAAT as an at-large bid. They simply don’t deserve it.
Stanford
This is one that I find very very interesting. Stanford is 16-9, and 3-3 on the road—a point I think is important. They’re 2-3 in Q1A, 4-3 in Q1 overall. However, they have 3 Q3 losses, all at home, versus UNLV, Notre Dame and Seattle. The reason why I think the road record is relevant here, is one could dismiss Stanford’s quality wins based on them being them the difficult West Coast trip in the ACC. However, they have a quality road win at fellow bubble-dweller Virginia Tech. Their resume metrics are close, and it’s conceivable they get into the top-50 of WAB, currently at 59, with Q1 opportunities at Wake Forest, Cal and NC St., plus a home Q2A versus SMU, currently 34th in NET. Definitely a resume worth monitoring.
TCU and Cal
Can’t talk about Stanford and not these 2, both of whom are closer to the bubble than Stanford, and also have 4 Q1 wins. TCU has a WAB of 52, and a NET of 47, so they’re quite close. But they also suffer from some bad losses, most notably an opening-night Q4 home loss to Southland also-ran, New Orleans, currently 222 in NET, as well as a Q3 loss at home to Notre Dame in OT. On the other side of the ledger, they have neutral wins over Florida and Wisconsin, home and away wins over Baylor, and most recently, a home win over Iowa St. that saw them post their best defensive raw and 2nd best adjusted efficiency metric of the season. The remaining schedule is favorable for TCU to rack-up some wins, at Oklahoma St. and Kansas St., and home for WVU, Arizona St. and Cincinnati, while still offering two quality win opportunities at UCF and Lubbock.
Cal is trending in the opposite direction, coming off a home thrashing at the hands of Clemson and a double overtime loss at Syracuse. They’re also oddly enough 0-3 in Q2. They lack the high-end signature wins of TCU, but hold a neutral win over UCLA, a home win over UNC, and road wins over Stanford and Miami (FL). They lack any further opportunities for an elite win, but will get Stanford and SMU in Berkeley. Otherwise, they’ll have the oppportunity to rack up wins at BC, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest and home for Pitt.
Baylor
For my Johnnies brethren, this one resonates. Baylor has been hovering around the top-50 of NET necessary for that neural win to count as Q1 for the Johnnies. Currently 46 in NET, Baylor is just 63 in WAB, and has a win-loss record of 12-11. The WAB is just 63. However, they will have a ton of opportunities to improve that WAB, playing Louisville on a neutral floor, Arizona at home, and UCF and Houston on the road, interspersed with home games against Arizona St. and Utah and a trip to Manhattan to face Kansas St. In other words, the opportunities are there to get onto this bubble. They’re 3-9 in Q1. If they can go 3-1 in the quality opportunities, and avoid the bad loss down the stretch, they could finish 19-12, and likely have the metrics and quality wins for inclusion. Going 18-13 overall—implying just 2-2 in these quality opportunities—and they’ll have to do some work in the Big12 tournament and likely still be sweating on Selection Sunday. So the stakes are high for the Bears down the stretch.
St. Mary’s
Given my hardline stance on Miami (OH), a discussion of St. Mary’s is also necessary. The Gaels are 21-4, 28th in NET and 37 in WAB. However, the Gaels are 0-3 in Q1, but 4-1 in Q2. Of course, what separates the Gaels from Miami (OH) is that their predictive metrics averages are 32.67, well within the range of inclusion. However, given the lack of Q1 wins, St. Mary’s drops roughly 1 to 2-seed lines from what their metrics would imply, which is an 8/9 seed, down to a 10-seed for me. I wanted to drop them a bit farther, but the teams behind them have too many resume flaws for me to drop the Gaels further. USC, e.g. has significantly weaker predictive metrics, UCLA significantly weaker resume metrics, conference mate Santa Clara has a Q4 loss and just a single Q1 win.
St. Louis
How do you seed the Billikens? The predictive average implies a 6 seed, as does the resume metrics average. But they’ve only got 2 Q1 wins. However, we’ve seen the committee the last few years reward mid-majors with low Q1 win totals if the winning percentage was good, and it doesn’t get any better than St. Louis’ Q1 win percentage of 100%, 2-0. Therefore, I’ve slotted the Billikens right where their metrics indicate they should be: the 6-seed line.
Seton Hall
The Hall started the season in questionable fashion, struggling with Wagner in their 2nd game out, and not passing the eye test in their first 5 buy games. Then they went to Maui and beat NC St. by 5, and narrowly lost to USC. Big East play has not been kind to the Pirates, as they’ve dropped both opportunities against Villanova, lost home games to UConn and Butler, and lost at St. John’s, DePaul, and Creighton. That said, all hope is not lost for the Pirates. They have a huge game (for them) this Sunday at Butler, which remains a Q1 opportunity at this time, and they’re coming off their best offensive performance of the season against providence. If they want to make the NCAAT, winning out would almost certainly do the trick. Dropping 1 of the big opportunities vs St. John’s or UConn and it gets a bit sweatier, but I’d still like their chances. Like Baylor, a lot to play for down the stretch. If the Providence game is a sign of the offense turning a corner, and not just a flash in the pan, they’ll certainly have a shot at pulling off an upset with their defense as good as it is—18th in the Country per KenPom versus an offense ranked 172nd.
Without further ado, here’s the bracket:
Seed List
Arizona
Michigan
Duke
UConn
Houston
Iowa St.
Illinois
Florida
Purdue
Kansas
Nebraska
Michigan St.
Texas Tech
Vanderbilt
Gonzaga
Louisville
Virginia
Arkansas
Alabama
St. John's
Tennessee
Saint Louis
North Carolina
Clemson
BYU
Kentucky
Utah St.
NC St.
Villanova
Auburn
Iowa
Wisconsin
Indiana
SMU
Texas A&M
Georgia
UCF
Last 4 Byes
Miami (FL)
Saint Mary's (CA)
Texas
Southern California
Last 4 In
UCLA
Santa Clara
Missouri
Virginia Tech
Other Auto Bids
Tulsa
Belmont
Liberty
McNeese St.
Yale
Utah Valley
Hofstra
Akron
High Point
Hawai'i
Troy
St. Thomas (MN)
Austin Peay
ETSU
Portland St.
Wright St.
Navy
UT Martin
Marist
LIU
Howard
Bethune-Cookman
Vermont
First 4 Out
Ohio St.
San Diego St.
New Mexico
TCU
Next 4 Out
Oklahoma St.
California
Seton Hall
Miami (OH)