KenPom is a great tool, but let's not be dogmatic here. Purdue is terrible, Iowa is not good, and Minnesota appears to be a much different team with how they've sank like a stone in the second half(5-10 in their last 15 with losses to Purdue, Northwestern, and Nebraska). You're going to have to explain to me how this is pragmatic. In the interests of brevity, I didn't go into a paragraphs-long description about exactly why 15-16 Purdue is terrible, why unanimous edge of the bubble team Iowa is not good, and why jumped-off-a-cliff Minnesota is probably a worse team now than their statistical profile would suggest. I have enough faith in the community here that they can see the point being made. Wait, Pomeroy's numbers are invalidated because they're on the edge of the bubble? When they're solely on the edge of the bubble because of the awful RPI? The only thing "not good" about Iowa is their NC SOS. They beat five 300+ teams by 30 instead of beating 180-225 teams by 10. That's why they're on the edge of the bubble. Oh and that they played in the toughest league in the country instead of finishing 2nd or 3rd in the SEC. They're one of the youngest teams in the country and played like [expletive] against a Va. Tech team that was playing well at the time. They were 8-0 after beating Iowa and then Oklahoma St. by 10. 6 of their 9 Big Ten losses were by 4 points or less. The only losses they had that weren't that close were at UM, IU and OSU. 4 of them to IU, MSU, at Minnesota and at Wisconsin in 2 OT. In each of the games they led in the final minute and had some ridiculous bad luck along with some misses of their own. They're not a great team and they made their own bed with scheduling and not closing out a number of winnable games. I just don't follow your logic here.