2024-2025 B1G Basketball Thread

[CatsbyAZ]

I agree with all of this. It is OVERWHELMINGLY attended by men, much more than bowl games.

This what I’m seeing in Las Vegas for the First and Second round. 85-90% males crowding the sports books and bars in nearly all-male friend groups.

It's not going to be an outlier going forward.  With these mega conferences, plenty of shitty P4 teams are going to get in.

Yes, plenty of worse teams than OSU are going to get in.  Nobody is forcing OSU to accept a pay check to stay in the Big Ten.  Just like Mick Cronin complaining about his travel.  Yes, you just kick the can down of what a play in game in, but if OSU-Nebraska last night is a game between two safely in teams, you are really testing the "give a shit" limits.  You want Penn State-Northwestern to be a play in game?  Wherever you draw the line, there will be stakes, but that line is already so low, that 5-15 SEC teams might get in.  The line is presently between mid and ass.  I have no interest in making the line between ass and mega ass.  I already said the BTN pretending like anyone cares who makes the BTT.  Expansion literally makes that the NCAA tournament line.  We are already at a point where you can win 5 conference games and get in, and people are pretending there is an argument that teams that win fewer should get in?

I was one of those fans adamantly against the larger NCAA Tournament proposing a few years ago to expand to 96 teams, arguing that it would water it down too much, and further devalue the conference tournaments. Since then, I’ve lightened up and don’t really care. I’m indifferent about the recent proposal for an expansion to 76 teams, and, if approved, will end up watching whatever new play-in games feature 17-15 Ohio State Vs 22-13 Saint Joseph's.

I liken it to watching the lineup of crappy, pre-Christmas bowls. 6-6 Texas Tech Vs 6-6 California in the Independence Bowl. At this point my only eligibility standard for Bowls is to please keep the .500-or-above requirement. That way the teams I’m watching have a semblance of earning their way into an otherwise forgettable scrimmage I’m wasting 3 hours watching. I would ask the same of any proposed Tournament expansion, where eligibility requires a .500-or-above season. 17-16 Northwestern would’ve qualified for bid consideration.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Since then, I’ve lightened up and don’t really care.

IMHO, to an extent I don't really care either. 

I just wonder what problem an expanded tournament solves, other than "The NCAA wants even MORE money." Their desire for a bigger tournament so they can earn more money isn't my problem. The betting websites wanting more inventory so they have more games for degenerates to bet on isn't my problem. 

As medina has pointed out, it's been 40 years since we went to 64[/65/68], and no team below an 8 seed has EVER won the whole thing. Only three teams in 40 years, <10%, between a 5 and 8 have ever won. 

So it's not like you can claim that we need to expand the tournament because worthy teams have been left out. 64[/68] gives you enough slots for all worthy teams, plus the tallest midgets from the conferences that can only get in via auto-bid. 

The only thing you "gain" from expansion is letting in more midlevel P4 teams that have no shot. Why do we need that?

[bayareabadger]

I was one of those fans adamantly against the larger NCAA Tournament proposing a few years ago to expand to 96 teams, arguing that it would water it down too much, and further devalue the conference tournaments. Since then, I’ve lightened up and don’t really care. I’m indifferent about the recent proposal for an expansion to 76 teams, and, if approved, will end up watching whatever new play-in games feature 17-15 Ohio State Vs 22-13 Saint Joseph's.

I liken it to watching the lineup of crappy, pre-Christmas bowls. 6-6 Texas Tech Vs 6-6 California in the Independence Bowl. At this point my only eligibility standard for Bowls is to please keep the .500-or-above requirement. That way the teams I’m watching have a semblance of earning their way into an otherwise forgettable scrimmage I’m wasting 3 hours watching. I would ask the same of any proposed Tournament expansion, where eligibility requires a .500-or-above season. 17-16 Northwestern would’ve qualified for bid consideration.

I think most people were in that boat.

[medinabuckeye1]

IMHO, to an extent I don't really care either.

I just wonder what problem an expanded tournament solves, other than "The NCAA wants even MORE money." Their desire for a bigger tournament so they can earn more money isn't my problem. The betting websites wanting more inventory so they have more games for degenerates to bet on isn't my problem.

As medina has pointed out, it's been 40 years since we went to 64[/65/68], and no team below an 8 seed has EVER won the whole thing. Only three teams in 40 years, <10%, between a 5 and 8 have ever won.

So it's not like you can claim that we need to expand the tournament because worthy teams have been left out. 64[/68] gives you enough slots for all worthy teams, plus the tallest midgets from the conferences that can only get in via auto-bid.

The only thing you "gain" from expansion is letting in more midlevel P4 teams that have no shot. Why do we need that?

Honestly, my biggest reason is that I'd like to have the Tournament's two busiest days on Saturday/Sunday.  That *COULD* be accomplished simply by rearranging the schedule and I'd be ok with that but I more-or-less assume that expansion is inevitable.  

Also, I don't like the quasi-play-in thing.  For one thing, I think it should be the eight worst teams so it should be a 17 seed thing with 16/17 playing a play-in.  For another it is just weird.  The play-in seems like you are only sorta-kinda in.  I'd be fine with scrapping it entirely but that would cut into P4 slots too much for my liking.  

If it were purely up to me here is what I would do:

• Go back to 64, no play-in.  
• Make auto-bids conditional on having at least one team from your league in the top 160 in the final NET rankings.  For this year, that would eliminated auto-bids for six leagues*.
• Move the Tournament's first and second weekends back two days such that the sites would be either Saturday/Monday or Sunday/Tuesday instead of Thursday/Saturday or Friday/Sunday#.  

*The 160 isn't totally random, it is 2.5x the number of teams in the Tournament.  If none of your teams meet that, you suck and shouldn't be a part of the Tournament to determine the NC.  I could accept 2x (128) or even 3x (192).  For this year the leagues without a team in the top 128 are:

• Horizon, 135
• Am East, 141
• NEC, 168
• MAAC, 182
• MEAC, 183
• OVC, 188
• Patriot, 213
• SWAC, 224

So if you set the threshold at 128 you'd eliminate eight auto-bids, if you set it at 160 you'd eliminate six, and if you set it at 192 you'd eliminate two.  

#The point of this is mostly watchability.  I, like @MarqHusker just don't care enough to take the day off work but if you moved the busiest days to Saturday/Sunday I'd watch BB all day those days (provided it was on CBS not some channel I've never heard of and don't get).  Then on Monday/Tuesday you'd only have eight games per day and the vast majority of those could be after 5pm at least in EST.  I do understand that this doesn't help you much since by the time you Californians get out of work it is 8pm EST.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Through yesterday so 39.5 Tournament first rounds:

• seeds are 156-2 against 16
• seeds are 147-11 against 15
• seeds are 135-23 against 14
• seeds are 125-33 against 13
• seeds are 102-56 against 12
• seeds are 96-62 against 11
• seeds are 97-61 against 10
• seeds are 75-83 against 9

Note the LARGE drop from 4-5.  It isn't because #5's are substantially worse than #4's, it is because #13's are substantially worse than #12's.  The reason is the auto-bids.  The last at-large teams are generally right around the 11/12 line then you get some really tall tallest midgets for the rest of the 11/12 seeds but once you drop to #13 you have run out of decent BB teams and all you have left are comically bad tallest midgets.  This is why I specifically chose 80.  It would force all the #13 seeds and below to play their way in before they got sent out against the best teams in the Country.  That would weed out the worst of the worst.  

[bayareabadger]

It honestly feels like the current conference situation is making things more ideal for the current set up. Although I would do away with the 16 seed play ins. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Honestly, my biggest reason is that I'd like to have the Tournament's two busiest days on Saturday/Sunday.  That *COULD* be accomplished simply by rearranging the schedule and I'd be ok with that but I more-or-less assume that expansion is inevitable. 

Also, I don't like the quasi-play-in thing.  For one thing, I think it should be the eight worst teams so it should be a 17 seed thing with 16/17 playing a play-in.  For another it is just weird.  The play-in seems like you are only sorta-kinda in.  I'd be fine with scrapping it entirely but that would cut into P4 slots too much for my liking. 

If it were purely up to me here is what I would do:

• Go back to 64, no play-in. 
• Make auto-bids conditional on having at least one team from your league in the top 160 in the final NET rankings.  For this year, that would eliminated auto-bids for six leagues*.
• Move the Tournament's first and second weekends back two days such that the sites would be either Saturday/Monday or Sunday/Tuesday instead of Thursday/Saturday or Friday/Sunday#. 

*The 160 isn't totally random, it is 2.5x the number of teams in the Tournament.  If none of your teams meet that, you suck and shouldn't be a part of the Tournament to determine the NC.  I could accept 2x (128) or even 3x (192).  For this year the leagues without a team in the top 128 are:

• Horizon, 135
• Am East, 141
• NEC, 168
• MAAC, 182
• MEAC, 183
• OVC, 188
• Patriot, 213
• SWAC, 224

So if you set the threshold at 128 you'd eliminate eight auto-bids, if you set it at 160 you'd eliminate six, and if you set it at 192 you'd eliminate two. 

#The point of this is mostly watchability.  I, like @MarqHusker just don't care enough to take the day off work but if you moved the busiest days to Saturday/Sunday I'd watch BB all day those days (provided it was on CBS not some channel I've never heard of and don't get).  Then on Monday/Tuesday you'd only have eight games per day and the vast majority of those could be after 5pm at least in EST.  I do understand that this doesn't help you much since by the time you Californians get out of work it is 8pm EST. 

I agree regarding the play-ins. It seems silly that the 11 seed is a play-in. I mean, I get that those are traditionally "bubble" play-in matchups, but those teams are also substantially better than anyone 13 and below.

I personally am a big proponent of auto-bids. Win your conference, you get a chip and a chair. Yeah, we all know you're gonna get smoked. But you at least get a chance. That said, your idea of dropping anyone below 160 (or 128 or 192) would have the benefit of those 1, 2, and maybe 3 seed first round games being more compelling. As it stands, watching over the last day and a half I haven't tuned into 1 seed games at all. Why would I? The only #1 seeds that have EVER lost are UVA and some other school I can't remember. 

I'd prefer 64, no play-ins, full autobids. But they're not going to do that, so I'd just pray that they don't alter it further...

[medinabuckeye1]

The only #1 seeds that have EVER lost are UVA and some other school I can't remember.

I can't either, I think they are somewhere in Indiana, must have been Notre Dame.  

[medinabuckeye1]

I personally am a big proponent of auto-bids. Win your conference, you get a chip and a chair. Yeah, we all know you're gonna get smoked. But you at least get a chance. That said, your idea of dropping anyone below 160 (or 128 or 192) would have the benefit of those 1, 2, and maybe 3 seed first round games being more compelling. As it stands, watching over the last day and a half I haven't tuned into 1 seed games at all. 

That is my biggest reason for it.  As I've shown, #13's and below win much less often than #12's.  For example, through last year the #13's and below had a grand combined total of 12 S16 appearances and only one S16 win (against some Indiana School, must have been Notre Dame).  That is for all four per seed per tournament so that is 12 S16 appearances and one S16 win by the 624 teams that have been seeded #13-16.  By comparison the 156 #12 seeds had 22 S16 appearances  and two S16 wins.  Ie, the #13's and below simply don't belong.  I see my expansion to 80 idea as basically a compromise between excluding them based on NET and including them.  That way they get in, but they have to play a team in a mini-round before they get to the "real", 64-team tournament.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

That is my biggest reason for it.  As I've shown, #13's and below win much less often than #12's.  For example, through last year the #13's and below had a grand combined total of 12 S16 appearances and only one S16 win (against some Indiana School, must have been Notre Dame).  That is for all four per seed per tournament so that is 12 S16 appearances and one S16 win by the 624 teams that have been seeded #13-16.  By comparison the 156 #12 seeds had 22 S16 appearances  and two S16 wins.  Ie, the #13's and below simply don't belong.  I see my expansion to 80 idea as basically a compromise between excluding them based on NET and including them.  That way they get in, but they have to play a team in a mini-round before they get to the "real", 64-team tournament. 

Yeah, but I don't think the system is broken such that we really need to expand to 80. And the reason is that teams 33-48(ish), i.e. 9-12 seeds, already don't have a chance. So expanding that such that you add a bunch of other teams that don't have a chance is not all that compelling. 

I know you have that goal of getting the round of 64 on Sat/Sun... But maybe, just maybe, that's actually not all that important?

Think about it... Basically any male basketball fanatic who has the ability to take days off or WFH is already doing so for Thurs/Fri of the first weekend. And there are 16 games a day, which you can't literally watch all at once. You can flip back and forth between the best/closest matchups and the potentially brewing upsets. If a 1/2/3 is at risk of upset from a 16/15/14 you can swap to that game. If not? You can watch a 6/11 or 7/10 or 8/9 that's competitive. And then when you get to Sat/Sun you've weeded out most of the Cinderella teams and you're getting closer and closer to actual compelling matchups. You've got a lot of 4/5 and 6/3 and 7/2 matchups (and obv the 1 vs 8/9) but you're actually expecting those to be more compelling games... Sprinkled in with the occasional 12/13/14[/15?] that's trying to be the Cinderella getting to the second weekend. 

In the round of 64, most of the games aren't that great. Will they be better if we go to 80 and cut out a couple of truly shitty teams? Maybe. But the 1/2/3 seeds will still be games that you're mostly only tuning into if it's upset alert, so I don't know if you've really made an improvement. And in doing so, you've taken the more important games (advancing to the S16) and pushed them to weekdays. IMHO one of the biggest problems with the NCAAT [and the CFP] is that the championship game is on a Monday. 

The current situation works. Why change it? 

[medinabuckeye1]

Interesting, first time in a while that none of the 1-4 seeds got upset.

[ELA]

It was perfect.  Every alteration has diminished it.  Every further alternation will diminish it more.  There is zero rationale other than money. 

And Im not old man shaking fist at cloud.  I actually liked expanding the MLB playoffs from 4 to 5 to reward divisional races.  I didnt like going from 5 to 6.  I thought I would like the 4 team CFP.  I didnt.  I think the 12 team is better.  I like the NBA Play In Tournament.  Im fine with expansion when it makes sense.  But as someone who loves both the tournament and the regular season in college basketball, I cant imagine wanting more at large bids

[ELA]

Interesting, first time in a while that none of the 1-4 seeds got upset.

I think everyone except Kansas has figured out the portal

[medinabuckeye1]

I think everyone except Kansas has figured out the portal

I also noticed that our league got the most benefit from upsets as our two #4 seeds are both playing #12 seeds this weekend. 

Also, did all of our teams advance? B1G! B1G! B1G!