Conference Standings
Big South Ovc Tournament Projections(8 teams Β· 10k simulations)
| Seed | Team | Elo | Final | π Win |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UT Martin | 1514 | 43% | 26% |
| 2 | Gardner-Webb | 1483 | 38% | 21% |
| 3 | Lindenwood | 1471 | 32% | 16% |
| 4 | Charleston So. | 1438 | 26% | 12% |
| 5 | Southeast Mo. St. | 1418 | 21% | 10% |
| 6 | Western Ill. | 1402 | 18% | 7% |
| 7 | Eastern Ill. | 1351 | 13% | 4% |
| 8 | Tennessee St. | 1340 | 10% | 4% |
Values = P(reach that stage or further). Win = P(win conference tournament = auto NCAA bid). Seeds reflect average simulated finish position.
Big South Ovc Standings
2 qualify for championship gamePreseason projection Β· 24 games remainingSnapshot Week
Standings Β· Finishing Position Probabilities
| # | Team | Conf | Overall | Proj Conf | Proj Ovr | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UT Martin | 0β0 | 0β0 | 3.6β2.4 3β4 W | 3.6β2.4 3β4 W | 25 | 18 | 15 | 12 | 10 | 8.5 | 6.3 | 4.9 |
| 2 | Gardner-Webb | 0β0 | 0β0 | 3.5β2.5 3β4 W | 3.5β2.5 3β4 W | 20 | 18 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 9.1 | 7.4 | 5.2 |
| 3 | Lindenwood | 0β0 | 0β0 | 3.3β2.7 3β4 W | 3.3β2.7 3β4 W | 16 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 12 | 11 | 9.3 | 6.7 |
| 4 | Charleston So. | 0β0 | 0β0 | 3.1β2.9 2β4 W | 3.1β2.9 2β4 W | 13 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 |
| 5 | Southeast Mo. St. | 0β0 | 0β0 | 2.9β3.1 2β4 W | 2.9β3.1 2β4 W | 9.2 | 12 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 14 | 13 |
| 6 | Western Ill. | 0β0 | 0β0 | 2.8β3.2 2β4 W | 2.8β3.2 2β4 W | 8.1 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 15 |
| 7 | Eastern Ill. | 0β0 | 0β0 | 2.5β3.5 2β3 W | 2.5β3.5 2β3 W | 5.1 | 7.4 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 18 | 21 |
| 8 | Tennessee St. | 0β0 | 0β0 | 2.3β3.7 2β3 W | 2.3β3.7 2β3 W | 4.1 | 6.2 | 7.9 | 11 | 12 | 16 | 19 | 24 |
Position columns: % of 10,000 simulated seasons finishing there. Row below cut line = P(reach championship game).
Finishing Position Range β Season Progression
UT MartinGardner-WebbLindenwoodCharleston So.Southeast Mo. St.Western Ill.Eastern Ill.Tennessee St.