My two-part theory on why Vanderbilt didn't get a bid, based on what the committee did and didn't do

Chris Lee · Mar 13, 2023

Again, I would have barely put Vanderbilt in the field based on accomplishment. But of course the committee didn't and so I'm trying to look at what it did and find a pattern or two here. Maybe it's coincidence or maybe it isn't.

NET of some teams left out:

38. North Texas (24-7)
40. Rutgers (19-14)
43. Oklahoma State (18-15)
46. North Carolina (20-13)
47. Oregon (19-14)
54. New Mexico (21-11)
57. UAB (24-9)
60. Clemson (23-10)
61. Michigan (17-15)
65. Sam Houston State (21-7)
70. Cincinnati (20-12)
76. Virginia Tech (19-14)
78. Dayton (22-12)
79. Utah (17-15)
80. Wisconsin (17-14)
81. Vanderbilt (20-14)

Plus, based on where they were seeded, it seems obvious that Oral Roberts (NET of 38) and Charleston (51) and Drake (55) were not getting in despite NETs that had each in the vicinity, without winning league tournaments.

NET of some teams that got at-large bids:
67. Pitt (23-11)
66. Arizona St. (22-12)
56. Providence (21-11)
50. USC (22-10)
49. Mississippi St. (21-12)
45. North Carolina St. (23-10)
42. Missouri (24-9)
41. Northwestern (21-11)

A pattern I see here with Power 5/Big East teams is two things:

The NET number itself probably mattered to some degree, but not as much as people think... maybe? ; 67 and 66 were the lowest-two NET teams that got in with an at-large. The higher the number goes, the worse the optics are in a sense, but then again, St. John’s got in with a 73 one year with a 21-12 record. Maybe there was just a tolerance level that, say, outside the top 70, the committee just didn't have the appetite to let a team that high in?
But another thing jumps out. For Power 5 teams 12 losses, in some sense, seemed to be a cutoff; ASU, Providence, Mississippi State, Northwestern, NC State, USC, Pitt and Missouri all got in with 12 or fewer. Rutgers, Oklahoma State, UNC, Oregon, Michigan, Virginia Tech, Utah, Wisconsin and Vanderbilt did not, and a few of those teams (Virginia Tech, Utah) weren’t considered.
The exception is West Virginia, which went went 19-14 but also had the No. 5 strength of schedule and beat six teams that made the field. But the resume-based metrics had WVU as an 8-seed. WVU’s NET of 24 had it as a 6-seed. Instead, WVU got a 9. That makes me think it's more the high-loss total that did it, with the NET not helping.

Conclusion: If you were a Power 5 team and lost 13 or more, even if you played a tough schedule, you weren’t getting in except under an extraordinary circumstance. Even Oklahoma State (No. 8 strength of schedule) was left at home.

Chris Lee · Mar 13, 2023