Some resumes for the 2024 men's NCAA tournament are almost too easy to evaluate. Purdue is the clear-cut No. 1 overall seed. Teams like Clemson, Creighton and San Diego State are comfortably in the No. 5 seed line range. And while we can debate whether they are in or out, both Cincinnati and Mississippi State are plainly right on the cut line.

Then there are the ones that feel like Mission: Impossible to Seed.

In the latest Bracket Matrix refresh, Auburn ranges from a No. 2 seed to a No. 5 seed. South Carolina is projected for anything from a No. 3 to a No. 8. And Florida Atlantic is, deservedly, all over the projected map.

Let's take a look through some of the resumes that are toughest to figure out with about one month to go until Selection Sunday.

Teams are presented in no particular order, although the first five are each likely tournament teams that are simply tough to seed, while the last four are each bubble teams who perhaps don't deserve to dance at all.

Records and resume data current through the start of play Tuesday.

Utah State Aggies

Current Resume: 20-4, NET: 29, RES: 20.5, QUAL: 47.5

Three Best Wins: at Boise State, vs. Colorado State, vs. Boise State

Three Worst Losses: vs. Nevada, at Bradley, at New Mexico

Figuring out where to slot Utah State has been a seasonlong struggle, one which got a lot tougher in the first week of February with the Aggies suffering back-to-back 14-point losses to San Diego State and Nevada.

It's a classic "no elite wins, no terrible losses" sort of resume that you would expect to find close to the bubble cut line. But they are somehow looking good for more like a No. 6 seed.

Sweeping Boise State was great, but the Broncos are a bubble team. That's no more noteworthy than, say, Marquette sweeping St. John's or Arizona sweeping Utah. And while those teams are in the mix for a No. 1 seed, it's because they have quite a few other great wins behind that sweep.

For the Aggies, it's just a Q1/Q2 borderline home win over Colorado State and a nice-sized stockpile of Q2 wins.

But the result-based metrics love Utah State, because of all those Q2 wins (8-4 total vs. Q1/Q2) and because they haven't suffered anything close to a terrible loss. And thanks to that, the Aggies keep landing around the No. 6 seed line, even though they don't much feel like a Top 25 team.

Frankly, it's not much unlike what Memphis was bringing to the table a month ago, when the Tigers were top 10 in KPI/SOR and looking like a solid No. 3 seed with a lot of Q2 wins and no losses outside of Q1.

It took four terrible losses for Memphis to plummet out of the projected field, which notably could still happen to USU. The Aggies host Wyoming Wednesday and later have three straight against Fresno State, Air Force and San Jose State.

Win all four, and they'll surely be dancing. But how much damage they're able to do against the likes of Colorado State and New Mexico will determine whether they continue to look good for a spot in the top 25 overall seeds.

Florida Atlantic Owls

Current Resume: 19-5, NET: 27, RES: 27.0, QUAL: 26.0

Three Best Wins: Arizona (neutral), Texas A&M (neutral), Butler (neutral)

Three Worst Losses: at Florida Gulf Coast, vs. Bryant, at UAB

Florida Atlantic is in the Nos. 22-30 range in all five metrics, which makes it feel like we should probably just throw the Owls somewhere on the No. 7 seed line and call it a day.

But where's the fun in that when we can instead try to make even a little bit of sense out of a resume that includes both a win in Las Vegas over Arizona and a home loss to Bryant?

FAU presently has at least three wins against each of the four Quadrants, as well as at least one loss in each Quadrant.

How rare is that, you ask?

For now, the Owls are the only team in the country who fit that description. But there were eight teams that ended Selection Sunday in that boat last year and four who did so in 2022.

Of that group of 12 teams, eight missed the NCAA tournament, and the only one to earn a single-digit seed was 2023 Kentucky with a No. 6 seed.

While that isn't meant to suggest there's a two-in-three chance FAU will miss the cut, it does hopefully drive home the point that this is an unusual resume.

Break it down to brass tacks, and FAU has one outstanding win, a handful of good-not-great neutral-site victories and four bad losses, of which two were truly awful.

Good on the Owls for not only managing to schedule seven neutral-site nonconference games against respectable competition, but even winning most of those games. However, they've played down to the level of their competition too many times, including an overtime win over UTSA that came so close to another catastrophic loss.

FAU was one of two teams that I missed by multiple seed lines last season. I had the Owls projected for a No. 7 and they ended up with a No. 9. I already look forward to missing them by two seed lines again this year.

Auburn Tigers

Current Resume: 19-5, NET: 7, RES: 12.5, QUAL: 6.0

Three Best Wins: vs. Alabama, vs. Texas A&M, at Ole Miss

Three Worst Losses: at Appalachian State, at Mississippi State, at Florida

There are a bunch of teams that have somewhat juiced the numbers with their scoring margins. BYU was the biggest offender early in the year, though that has somewhat corrected itself in the Big 12 grind. Same goes for Iowa State. And prior to suffering a Q4 loss in Southland play, McNeese State was beginning to emerge as a bubble candidate because of their dominant-looking wins.

But Auburn takes the cake, exclusively winning in blowout fashion and—at least prior to getting smoked at Florida over the weekend—only losing close ones.

The Tigers are now 18-1 in games decided by at least 14 points, which is amazing as far as NET and the predictive metrics are concerned. The resume metrics adore them, because they have a bunch of Q2 wins and just the one loss outside of Q1A.

If you just take the average of all their metrics, they should be the last No. 2 seed.

Who has Auburn actually beaten, though?

Yes, the home win over Alabama the other day was great, and quite convincing. However, Alabama is a seeding conundrum of its own, with phenomenal metrics and just two wins (both at home) over surefire tournament teams (Auburn and South Carolina).

The Tigers had zero Q1 wins less than two weeks ago, which was making it a challenge to argue they even deserved a No. 6 seed, let alone a No. 2 seed.

The great metrics put Auburn in a position from which it could storm into the conversation for a No. 1 seed with a great finish. Win the four remaining February games against South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia and Tennessee and they'll be right there. But until the Tigers start stacking up Q1 wins, they're a No. 4 seed, at best.

BYU Cougars

Current Resume: 17-6, NET: 8, RES: 29.5, QUAL: 13.0

Three Best Wins: vs. Iowa State, vs. San Diego State, vs. Texas

Three Worst Losses: vs. Cincinnati, at Utah, at Texas Tech

Already mentioned BYU in the Auburn section, but the Cougars absolutely deserve one of their own.

During the nonconference portion of the season, BYU played 10 games against teams in Q3 (one) and Q4 (nine), winning those 10 games by an average margin of 36.1 points.

As a result, the Cougars were No. 2 in the initial NET rankings, and had even jumped ahead of Houston to No. 1 in advance of their lone nonconference loss to Utah. And they are still top 10 in the NET to this day, despite carrying a 5-5 league record into Tuesday's home game against UCF.

Barring an absolute collapse down the stretch, BYU is going to make the NCAA tournament.

But the results-based metrics in the 30 range are a much better indication of what BYU has actually done this season from a wins and losses perspective.

The losses aren't the problem, though. The home loss to Cincinnati is the only remotely questionable one, and the Bearcats are smack dab on the bubble.

It's the fact that BYU has just three wins over projected tournament wins, each of which came at home.

BYU is 4-6 against the top 1.5 Quadrants, which is shockingly mediocre for a team so highly rated by the NET. Close behind the Cougars in the NET are North Carolina (10-4 vs. Q1/Q2A), Marquette (8-5) and Kansas (9-5).

Ignore NET/KenPom/BPI and BYU looks a lot like Florida or Utah State in the No. 7 seed vicinity.

However, since the switch from RPI to NET, there have been three full seasons unimpacted by COVID, and the only team to finish the year in the NET Top 10 team and receive worse than a No. 4 seed was Houston in 2022—which played in the AAC, didn't get a Q1 win until Selection Sunday and still earned a No. 5 seed.

So, if BYU can stay in the NET top 10, do we lock them in for no worse than a No. 5 seed?

Moreover, there's the whole "will not play on Sunday for religious reasons, therefore must be placed in the East or West region, as well as in one of the Charlotte/Omaha/Pittsburgh/Salt Lake City pods" factor with trying to place BYU in the field. Even when I've wanted to put the Cougars as a No. 5 seed, I have regularly needed to bump them down to a No. 6 seed anyway.

South Carolina Gamecocks

Current Resume: 21-3, NET: 45, RES: 11.5, QUAL: 47.0

Three Best Wins: at Tennessee, vs. Kentucky, Grand Canyon (neutral)

Three Worst Losses: vs. Georgia, at Clemson, at Alabama

Sort of the polar opposite of Auburn and BYU, South Carolina just keeps winning games and can't seem to get the NET or the predictive metrics to believe it is the real deal.

Those metrics have turned a corner to some extent over the past month. The Gamecocks were 71st in NET and 73rd on KenPom prior to the start of what is now a seven-game winning streak featuring both of the gigantic wins over Kentucky and Tennessee.

But while the results-based metrics view East Coast USC as a borderline top-10 team, the predictives still barely have the Gamecocks ahead of Drake or SMU, neither of whom deserve a spot in the field today.

Missouri was in a similar boat last year, right down to the great road win over Tennessee and home win over Kentucky. The Tigers ended up at 24-9 overall, No. 42 in NET, 22.5 in RES and 54.7 in QUAL and got a No. 7 seed—which was much more in line with their results-based metrics than their predictives.

And with frankly nobody else playing like it wants the last No. 3 seed right now, there's a case to be made for the Gamecocks all the way up at No. 12 overall.

The problem with going that high—and the reason it's uncomfortable even giving South Carolina a No. 4 seed—is there's just not much of a stockpile of great wins here.

A total of 21 wins with only one loss outside of Q1A is awesome. However, two of their three Q1 wins are teetering much closer to Q2 than to Q1A, and they only have those two wins over surefire tournament teams—with even the 17-point win over Kentucky seeming to lose value by the day.

Of all the teams that we will see (or not see?) in the Top 16 reveal this coming Saturday, South Carolina will do the most to clue us in to how much stock this year's selection committee is putting on that KPI/SOR average.

Ole Miss Rebels

Current Resume: 18-5, NET: 59, RES: 17.5, QUAL: 67.0

Three Best Wins: at Texas A&M, vs. Florida, at UCF

Three Worst Losses: at LSU, at South Carolina, vs. Auburn

Might as well go straight from South Carolina to an even more drastic RES/QUAL split from the SEC.

Ole Miss has had great results-based metrics all season long, which will happen when you start out 13-0 with a couple of respectable victories peppered into that hot start.

But at no point have the predictive metrics bought into the Rebels, who were No. 82 on KenPom to start the season and still No. 82 when they suffered their first loss two months later.

Ole Miss has ascended a little bit since then to 60th on KenPom, much of that leap coming in the 18-point home win over Florida.

But 60th on KenPom is still pretty bad for tournament selection purposes.

The only teams who ended Selection Sunday outside the top 60 and still got an at-large bid last year were Arizona State (68) and Pittsburgh (77), both of whom received No. 11 seeds. It wasn't much different the previous year, either, when Miami (60) got a No. 10 seed and Rutgers (74) snuck in as a No. 11 seed by virtue of its five Q1A wins.

Ole Miss doesn't have anything close to that strong of a resume, either. In fact, it's hard to process why the Rebels are rated so highly in the results-based metrics, when they are just 5-5 vs. Q1/Q2—with one of those wins (vs. NET No. 75 Memphis) hanging onto a Q2 designation by a thread.

This isn't exactly a repeat of 2022 Providence, which couldn't get blowout wins to save its life but did at least have four Q1A wins and a 14-5 Q1/Q2 record to back up its top-15 results-based metrics.

With those Friars, the metrics reinforced what we already knew to be a good team that had a knack for winning tight games.

With the Rebels, the metrics feel like more of an outlier for a team that maybe doesn't even deserve to be in the field right now.

Villanova Wildcats

Current Resume: 13-11, NET: 41, RES: 62.5, QUAL: 31.0

Three Best Wins: North Carolina (neutral), at Creighton, Texas Tech (neutral)

Three Worst Losses: at Penn, Drexel (neutral), vs. Saint Joseph's

When I originally pitched this article idea three weeks ago, Villanova was the singular team I had in mind.

At the time, the Wildcats were 11-7 and looking good for something in the Nos. 8-9 seed range, though you could have argued a good two seed lines in either direction depending upon what you value most.

With losses in four of six games played since then, though, Villanova has become much less of a 'where to seed' conundrum and more of a 'whether to select' dilemma.

Nova's three best wins? Amazing. And it's not even a comprehensive look at the good this team has done. The Wildcats also stomped Memphis on a neutral floor (which looked a whole lot more impressive a month ago) and have scored home wins over Xavier, Providence, Seton Hall and Maryland.

It's the UNC and Creighton wins that really stand out, as with the exception of Georgia Tech (beat Duke and UNC, but is otherwise 8-14 overall), every team with at least two Q1A wins is at least in the at-large conversation.

But 11 total losses already? Three of them coming against Q3? And results-based metrics in the 60s, which has yet to be good enough for an at-large bid in the NET era of selecting the field?

Kind of hard to make the case for Villanova right now.

How far gone are the Wildcats, though?

First four out?

Next four?

Dead cats walking?

In addition to two games against Georgetown that they simply must win, Villanova has home games against Butler and Creighton, as well as road games against Connecticut, Providence and Seton Hall. Going 5-2 should be enough for a bid, while 4-3 would keep them on the bubble heading into the Big East tournament.

Gonzaga Bulldogs

Current Resume: 17-6, NET: 24, RES: 56.0, QUAL: 19.0

Three Best Wins: at Kentucky, vs. San Francisco, Syracuse (neutral)

Three Worst Losses: at Santa Clara, at Washington, vs. San Diego State

Up until a few days ago, there was nothing difficult about where to put Gonzaga. With nary a Q1 win nor even a win in the top half of Q2, it was a very easy "thanks, but no thanks" situation for a team that has had great seasonlong predictive metrics with nothing to back it up.

Now that they went out and got a road win over Kentucky, though, things have gotten a whole lot more interesting.

There is still a severe lack of quality wins here, and not for lack of opportunity. The Zags are now 1-5 vs. Q1 and 3-6 against the top two Quadrants. Notre Dame controversially got in two years ago with a 4-9 record against the top two Quadrants, but as a general rule of thumb, that type of winning percentage isn't going to be enough.

Moreover, Gonzaga's results-based metrics are hanging out right in the vicinity of worst to ever receive an at-large bid (2022 Rutgers at 57.5).

On the flip side of that coin, no team has finished in the top 30 of the NET and been left out of the NCAA tournament, so Gonzaga could be making history either way.

Here's my big question: How will the selection committee view Gonzaga's intended schedule as opposed to what it actually ended up with?

Specifically, will the neutral-site victories over UCLA, USC and Syracuse actually carry some weight, even though those teams are hovering around 100th in the NET, making those low-Q2/high-Q3 wins?

None of the three was actually ranked at the time of the game, but certainly more was expected of both the Trojans and the Bruins this season. And if you sort of artificially inflate the value of those wins, it becomes much easier to buy the Zags as a tournament team.

Of course, we're still missing a big piece of the puzzle here. Gonzaga ends the regular season with road games against San Francisco and Saint Mary's and will likely run into the Dons again in the WCC semifinals for the right to face the Gaels in the championship.

Run the table from here and maybe the Zags leap all the way up to something like a No. 5 seed. But if they lose two more times to Saint Mary's, the streak of 24 consecutive tournaments likely comes to an end.

Northwestern Wildcats

Current Resume: 17-7, NET: 56, RES: 32.0, QUAL: 45.5

Three Best Wins: vs. Purdue, vs. Illinois, vs. Dayton

Three Worst Losses: vs. Chicago State, at Minnesota, at Nebraska

We'll wrap this discussion up with the team that seems destined to be at the epicenter of the bubble debate.

Plenty of bubble teams have multiple great wins.

Plenty of bubble teams suffered a terrible loss.

Plenty of bubble teams have struggled to get a quality win away from home.

Plenty of bubble teams put together a deplorable nonconference strength of schedule.

Only Northwestern checks all of those boxes, though, which is a recipe for total uncertainty.

(More perplexing still: Ty Berry injured his knee last week against Nebraska, and we don't know yet if he'll play again this season.)

In addition to the three wins above, the Wildcats also have home wins over Michigan State and Nebraska. That's four Q1 wins and five total wins against the projected field—albeit all coming at Welsh-Ryan Arena.

That loss to Chicago State, though.

Woof.

Florida Atlantic lost at Florida Gulf Coast. Mississippi State lost to Southern. Memphis lost to Rice. But nothing was remotely as bad as that home loss to Chicago State.

Add to that the fact that Northwestern's NCSOS ranks well outside the top 300, playing just two games (and losing one of them) against the NET top 100. And further add to that Northwestern's 0-6 record away from home against the NET top 90.

It all just leaves us wondering: Which parts of the resume will matter most to this year's committee?

Northwestern does have four Quad 1 wins, and one of which came against the likely No. 1 overall seed.

However, a proven ability to win on the road is always key, and it was especially critical with last year's committee. Northwestern hasn't done that. And a NCSOS rank of 300-plus has historically been the type of thing that can cost a team at least a seed line, if not a spot in the field altogether.

There's nothing the Wildcats can do about the NCSOS now, but they can make or break their case on the road down the stretch, with games still to come at Rutgers, Indiana, Maryland and Michigan State. Got to win at least two of those four or they are in big-time bubble trouble, even with those great wins to their credit.