I’m about the same. I’m honestly not entirely sure what it is about LSU that is even so impressive to these bracketologists, too. If anything, I feel like LSU should be closer to the bubble than to a 5-seed. Their non-conference schedule was non-existent, and they’ve been very mediocre in conference play. It defies logic that they’re above anything more than a 9-seed. Feels like a team that should be closer to Last Four In if anything.
LSU’s noncon isn’t great and it’s ranked 188 for a reason but they found some good decent teams, similar to what Bama did, that they should beat but that didn’t look bad on paper. Bama found more than LSU did though.
Wake is 20-5 and 33 NET (neutral site)
Belmont is 20-5 and 46 NET
TCU is 16-5 and 55 NET (@TCU)
Ohio is 19-4 and 86 NET (home game)
Penn St, LA Tech, and Liberty are top 100 as well so they played 7 top 100 teams out of conference. Strangely enough, we’ve only played 6 top 100 out of conference. On the surface someone could argue LSU’s OOC scheduled is tougher than UT’s, at least until the context gets added showing that 4 of our 6 were against top 15 teams and only 1 of the 6 was a home game.
Anyway, LSU has played a super tough conference schedule to push their overall SOS to 6th and they’re 5-4 in quad 1 games. They’ve already played @Auburn, beat UK, split with us, won @ UF, and played Ark and Bama. The SEC is super strong this year and they haven’t hit Mizzou, UGA, and SC yet. I’m not crazy about NET though as too much emphasis gets placed on the quads when winning at home against UK like they did is still more impressive than winning at Texas A&M which they also did. Both are quad 1 wins as of right now though. No system is perfect of course and it’s just meant to be a tool. I agree with you in general. LSU doesn’t look great but I can see why they look decent on paper. The eye test says they aren’t near 16th but their data is pretty solid.