I tried to tell y'all about Clemson!
I believe the direct quote was — "Clemson's résumé sucks." And now, it's worse! Crazy how that works. Boston College deserved that one.
Anyway, victory lap is over, let's take a stroll down the seed list.
THE TOP LINES
Purdue and Alabama are good — bla, bla bla. Next.
Lost in the shuffle of the Big 12's ridiculous depth is a Kansas team that's quietly building an even better tournament résumé than last year's national champion. I had absolutely zero hesitation putting Kansas at No. 3 overall ahead of Houston. No losses outside Q1, a nation-leading nine Q1 wins, with four coming in Q1A, plus the No. 1 overall SOS? That's gorgeous. I even considered slotting Kansas ahead of Alabama. With a win at Iowa State, I probably will.
It feels as though no one is talking about Arizona. If Houston wasn't NET No. 1, the Wildcats would be on my one line. Their metrics are worse than any of my other No. 1 and No. 2 seeds, but Arizona's one of three teams in the nation with 20 wins, and has an absolutely mind-numbing 5-0 record in Q1A. The only problem? Arizona really doesn't have an opportunity to drastically move the needle again until March 2 and March 4 when the Wildcats visit USC and UCLA.
But this is why Houston should be concerned. In order to stay on the top line, the Cougars either need chaos to ensue, or they need to be near-perfect down the stretch. With the résumé quality of some of these No. 2 seeds — we'll talk about Texas another time — a four-loss Houston almost definitely misses out on a No. 1 seed. A three-loss Houston is up in the air — probably depends who the third loss is.
MID.
That's enough on the top teams; let's jump to the middle.
In Season 7 of NBC's "The Office," Will Ferrell's cameo character sees a photo of a cute baby, visibly pretends to find it adorable, and then goes into a sidebar interview to say — That baby could be the star of a show called "Babies I Don't Care About."
That quote always seemed mean to me — hilarious, but mean — until this morning, when I reluctantly slapped Gonzaga onto the No. 4 line.
So, here's the teams I've slotted into my category of "Résumés I Don't Care About." These résumés are worse than they should be, and are each currently being propped up by something like a good W-L record or a lack of bad losses. But I'm just waiting for these teams to fail — remember when Clemson was "good?" — or, crazy idea, maybe win a Q1 game.
Here's the list: Gonzaga, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Arkansas, Gonzaga, Memphis and Gonzaga
Believe it or not, though, I'm actually a nice guy — at least, I try to be. And I have an exact inverse category of teams whose résumés bring me just the sweetest joy, and I'm anxiously waiting for them to get that one marquee win — or just win a few in a row so you're not 12-10, Oklahoma — and take the leap.
We're talking: Marquette, Iowa, West Virginia, New Mexico (two Q1A wins!), Arkansas (I know, they're in both categories, this one's just a gut thing), Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, and Seton Hall
Seriously, though, why can't the mediocre teams who beat really good teams not also lose to bad teams?
VARIOUS & MISCELLANY
You were probably inclined to panic when you saw Florida Atlantic lose in conference. Here's the good news — UAB is actually good, too! So your, my, and our Owls are just fine; that was a Q1 road loss. Barely a scratch on the ol' team sheet.
Also, Kentucky isn't a tournament team. Just wanted to throw that one out there. Any source that has Kentucky in the field is scared of Big Blue Nation. You don't win one (1) Quad 1 game in seven tries, lose in Q4, and just magically get a bid. Be better.
'Cats have nice metrics, though. They're a couple solid wins away.
I'll shut up now. Go FAU. Here's the seed list: