The NCAA Tournament selection committee will step into the spotlight this weekend with the annual early reveal of the top 16 seeds at this point in the season.

Where will Gonzaga land? The Zags are an interesting case on two fronts.

Their placement (or exclusion) will reflect the damage inflicted by the stunning loss at Portland two weeks ago. Alone among the top 20 teams in the current NET rankings, the Zags own a Quadrant III defeat. It won’t go unpunished.

The second component to Gonzaga’s fate in the early reveal is more difficult to measure: the resume damage resulting from the underperformance of three Big Ten opponents.

Gonzaga scheduled neutral-site matchups with UCLA, Oregon and Maryland, which were projected to finish third, fifth and 13th in the Big Ten race, respectively, in a preseason media poll conducted by the Columbus Dispatch.

To varying degrees, all three have floundered.

The Bruins are in seventh place in the conference and No. 40 in the NET rankings, with just two Quad 1 wins and a position on the NCAA Tournament bubble.

The Terrapins are tied for 14th place, with a 3-11 record in conference play and a NET ranking in the 150s.

The Ducks are 16th in the Big Ten, battered by injuries and hurtling toward their worst season under longtime coach Dana Altman.

Will the committee look favorably on the intent behind Gonzaga’s schedule? It should. There is only so much the 297 schools outside the power conference can do to challenge themselves.

Even a morsel of credit — a single seed line — would help Gonzaga’s quest to return to the Final Four for the first time since 2021.

Consider the all-time winning percentage of the top seeds in first-round games:

No. 1 seeds: 98.8%(158-2)No. 2 seeds: 93.1% (149-11)No. 3 seeds: 85.6% (137-23)No. 4 seeds: 79.4% (127-33)

Or the frequency with which each seed reaches the Final Four:

No. 1 seeds: 66 appearancesNo. 2 seeds: 32No. 3 seeds: 17No. 4 seeds: 15

Based on those data sets, the difference between the No. 2 and No. 3 seeds is greater than the difference between the No. 3 and No. 4 seeds.

Do the Zags, despite their ghastly loss to Portland, have enough resume juice to earn a No. 2 seed?

Or is their seed ceiling limited to the No. 3 line?

It might depend on the credit given (or withheld) for three wins over Big Ten opponents that have underperformed.

Our first clue comes Saturday with the early reveal.

To the power rankings:

1. Utah State (22-3)

Results: beat Fresno State 91-78 and Memphis 99-75

NET ranking: No. 23

Comment: Coach Jerrod Calhoun received significant heat after his Aggies ran up the score against Memphis, but his postgame explanation was spot on: Victory margin is one of the most powerful tools available to mid-majors in the selection process. The system forces them to disregard sportsmanship and respect. (Previous: 1)

2. Gonzaga (25-2)

Results: beat Washington State 83-53, won at Santa Clara 94-86

NET ranking: No. 6

Comment: To what extent will the 40-point loss to Michigan (in Las Vegas) impact Gonzaga’s seed? The damage should be north of zero but far south of significant given that the Zags have proven themselves against a slew of power conference opponents. (Previous: 2)

3. San Diego State (18-6)

Results: beat Nevada 71-57

NET ranking: No. 41

Comment: SDSU stands as the most bubblicious situation in the rebuilt Pac-12 — the team likely to determine whether the conference that doesn’t exist yet receives two NCAA bids or three. The Aztecs certainly have enough juice left in their schedule — games against Utah State, New Mexico, Boise State and Grand Canyon — to play their way off the bubble and into the field. (Previous: 3)

4. Boise State (15-10)

Results: lost to UNLV 86-83 (OT)

NET ranking: No. 60

Comment: Meanwhile, the Broncos have played their way off the bubble, only in the wrong direction. The loss to UNLV, in which they somehow squandered a 17-point lead with nine minutes remaining, was a resume killer of the first order. (Previous: 4)

5. Oregon State (14-14)

Results: won at San Francisco 90-63, lost at Seattle 60-50

NET ranking: No. 184

Comment: Without extensive research, it’s difficult to know the last time the Beavers were above No. 200 in the NET rankings this late in the season. The reason it’s so difficult? At the time, the internet did not exist. (Previous: 5)

6. Washington State (11-16)

Result : lost at Gonzaga 83-53

NET ranking: No. 135

Comment: This time next year, we will know if the Cougars must embark on a coaching search. David Riley will be at the end of his third season, which is more than enough time for casting judgment in the portal era. (Previous: 6)

7. Fresno State (12-13)

Results: lost at Utah State 91-78, beat Air Force 93-63

NET ranking: No. 137

Comment: It’s increasingly easy to spot the building blocks necessary for the Bulldogs to be competitive in the Pac-12 next season. Their defense is a solid 62nd in the KenPom.com efficiency ratings. They just need to fix the offense (207th).  (Previous: 7)

8. Colorado State (15-10)

Results: won at Air Force 91-74, beat Wyoming 79-68

NET ranking: No. 95

Comment: The goal for the rebuilt Pac-12 should be to eventually place all nine teams in the top 100 of the NET rankings. That’s ambitious, sure. And it will cost a pretty penny, both for roster construction and schedule manipulation. But why not aim high? (Previous: 8)

9. Texas State (17-11)

Results: beat Troy 74-62 and UL Monroe 95-84

NET ranking: No. 236

Comment: We should probably mention the sizzling Bobcats are a threat to qualify for the NCAAs as the Sun Belt tournament winner given their six-game winning streak and the likelihood of securing a high seed in two weeks in Pensacola. (Previous: 9)