How Could SMU Get Into the NCAA Tournament Instead of Cal?

The question among Cal fans after the field for the NCAA tournament was announced Sunday was this: How did SMU get into the 68-team field when Cal didn’t if you look at game results?

The simple answer is Cal did better on the court, but SMU did better with the computers.

Observers – especially Cal observers – may not like it, but that’s the way it is.

Ultimately, SMU was the last at-large team to make the NCAA tournament field, according to selection committee chairman Keith Gilld, and Cal was not even among the first four out, meaning Cal missed getting in by a sizable margin.

Cal players, coaches and fans will point out several obvious factors that seem to put Cal ahead of SMU in consideration for a berth in March Madness:

---Cal has a 21-11 overall record, which is better than SMU’s 20-13 record.

---Cal had a 9-9 ACC record, which is better than SMU’s 8-10 conference mark.

---Cal has a slightly better record in Quad 1 games: Cal is 4-6 in those games and SMU is 4-9. (A Quad 1 win is a home victory over a team ranked in the top 30 of the NET rankings, or a neutral-court victory over a top 50 team, or a road victory over a top 75 team in the NET.) Cal and SMU each had four Quad 1 wins, but SMU lost more Quad 1 games.

---Cal beat SMU 73-69 in the teams’ only meeting this season, and it was late in the season (February 25) when you would think results matter most. And the tournament selection committee says head-to-head matchups matter.

So how did SMU get in and Cal didn’t?

Computers.

Here is a Cal-SMU comparison of the metrics used by the NCAA tournament selection committee:

---NET (NCAA Evaluation Tool) Rankings: SMU 37, Cal 68.

---WAB (Wins Above Bubble) Rankings: SMU 45, Cal 54.

---BPI (Basketball Power Index) Rankings: SMU 42, Cal 80

---SOS (Strength of Schedule: SMU 44, Cal 81

---SOR (Strength of Record) Rankings: SMU 49, Cal 56

---KPI (Kevin Pauga Index) Rankings: SMU 41, Cal 57

---KenPom Rankings: SMU 42, Cal 73

---Torvik Rankings: SMU 42, Cal 68

In every one of these metrics, SMU has a sizable advantage over Cal.

Why?

It's because Cal played a softer nonconference schedule than SMU. SMU’s nonconference opposition was not great but it was better than Cal’s.

The Bears’ highest-ranked nonconference opponent was UCLA, which is No. 30 in the NET rankings, and the Bears won that game.

However, it goes way down from there.

Kansas State, at No. 100 in the NET rankings, was the second-highest-ranked Cal nonconference opponent. And Cal lost that game.

Five of Cal’s nonconference victims had a NET ranking worse than 250, and a sixth nonconference opponent was a Division II team. All of those games were Cal home games.

Here are the NET rankings of Cal’s 11 other nonconference foes besides UCLA and Kansas State, helping the Bears to go 12-1 in nonconference play:

Cal State Bakersfield – 330

Wright State – 127

Cal State Fullerton – 177

Presbyterian – 260

Sacramento State – 269

Utah – 132

Pacific – 116

Dominican – Division II, no NET ranking

Northwestern State – 301

Morgan State – 352

Columbia – 185

The solution for Cal seems simple: Schedule better nonconference opponents. But that’s not necessarily the answer.

Teams schedule nonconference games they can win easily for two reasons:

---Rack up some easy wins to improve the overall record.

---Develop confidence in the team as it goes into conference play against better opposition.

If Cal had played a more difficult nonconference schedule and gone, say, 7-6 in nonconference games, the Bears would not achieve their first 20-win season since 2016-17 and might not be in the NIT.

Furthermore, losing six nonconference might not have built the confidence Cal needed to play well in ACC games. You wonder whether Cal’s players would have had the self-assurance to beat North Carolina and Miami if they had struggled more early in the season.

It was probably smart for Mark Madsen to schedule the way he did, considering the Bears had not had a winning season since 2016-17. Afterall, Cal might have received an NCAA tournament berth if the Bears had defeated 15th-place Pitt and 13th-place Wake Forest at the end of the regular season.

This does not completely answer the question of whether Cal SHOULD have been in the NCAA tournament instead of SMU, but it explains why the Mustangs did get in and Cal didn’t.