2025-2026 B1G Basketball Thread

[FearlessF]

Nebraska only had 4 players on the court during that deep play?

[medinabuckeye1]

Again, they use resume metrics to pick the field, and predictive to seed.

I get that and I'm saying there are situations where they need to look at that a little deeper.  The problem is that like a lot of mathematical formulas the WAB and SOR get weird at the margins.  When talking about bubble teams the underlying problem is that you are comparing apples an oranges.  Resume metrics attempt to bridge that gap.  So, for example, if you look at Auburn (#9 SoS per KenPom, 17-16 on Selection Sunday) and compare them to say Iowa (#28 SoS per KenPom, 21-12 on Selection Sunday) the metric works.  As I see it the question is (or at least should be) what is harder:

• Going 17-16 on Auburn's schedule, or
• Going 21-12 on Iowa's schedule?  

Auburn's schedule was tougher but Iowa's record is better.  I'd argue that one for Iowa.  Both went 0-fer against high end OOC opposition and Iowa lost at ISU (#2 seed, still in) while Auburn had the aforementioned four losses to high end teams.  The metric works well because you are comparing reasonably comparable schedules and reasonably comparable records.  

The problem is at the margins.  It is a lot harder to compare Auburn (#9 SoS per KenPom, 17-16 on Selection Sunday) to Miami (#251 SoS per KenPom, 31-1 on Selection Sunday).  With Iowa/Auburn you are comparing a slightly better record against a slightly tougher SoS.  With Auburn/Miami you are comparing a much better record against a vastly easier SoS.  The metrics may say it is Miami but they are flat out wrong.  They are wrong because what did Miami accomplish that Auburn didn't?  Let's look:

• Each had one loss in the bottom two quadrants:  Auburn at 6-0 in Q4, 4-1 in Q3, Miami at 15-1 in Q4, 10-0 in Q3
• Each had three wins in Q2:  Auburn at 3-2, Miami at 3-0
• While Auburn wasn't good against the best, they at least tried and had SOME wins in Q1:  Auburn at 4-13, Miami at . . . well the RedHawks didn't see a Q1 game before Selection Sunday.  

If your metric thinks that a team with a dreadful Q4 loss and ZERO offsetting Q1 wins should get in over a team that has Q1 wins and does NOT have Q4 losses then your metric is wrong.  

Then they moved down when they used the predictive metrics to seed them.

Bringing up KenPom and any of those other predictive metrics is pointless in bringing up the team's merits of getting in.  If Miami not only got in, but was a 10 seed or something

I already can make the seeding argument because the plain fact is that Miami was MASSIVELY overseeded as a #11.  Here are the NET and KenPom rankings for the #11 and #12 seeds (sorted by NET and NET is first followed by team, then KenPom, then Torvik then seed):

• #36 NCST, 36, 41 - 11 Seed
• #37 SMU, 48, 48 - 11 Seed
• #42 Texas, 31, 38 - 11 Seed
• #43 VCU, 42, 46 - 11 Seed
• #45 USF, 47, 51 - 11 Seed
• #54 Akron, 70, 71 - 12 Seed
• #56 McNeese, 65, 67 - 12 Seed
• #64 Miami, 90, 87 - 11 Seed
• #72 UNI, 76, 75 - 12 Seed
• #75 High Point, 85, 86 - 12 Seed

By NET Miami is right in the middle of the #12 seeds but even that is overly generous to the RedHawks because their #90 KenPom is worse than any of the #12 seeds as is their #87 Torvik ranking.  Per NET they should be a #12 seed but if you seeded based on KenPom or Torvik they'd be no better than a #13.  

Just because the committee seeded them as low as they possibly could seed an at-large doesn't mean they were over-seeded.  They were massively over-seeded.  

The question here is how the hell did SMU get in

Maybe they did it to protect their emotional 'feel good' decision to put Miami in?  SMU's NET isn't too bad but their KenPom and Torvik are weak.  Not as weak as Miami, obviously but still very weak by legitimate at-large standards.  Including SMU and putting them against Miami an hour from Miami's campus was awfully convenient.

[medinabuckeye1]

I am really trying to avoid getting back into this fight...
...but just as a quick reminder three of those losses were not just losses.  They were SLAUGHTERS.  Auburn didn't even belong on the floor with Arizona, Michigan, and Purdue.  I give them full credit for scheduling tough, but the margin of defeat there was pretty much just as bad as what the score would have been if Miami had played in those games instead (sure, that's conjecture, but probably not by much).

Yeah, they were slaughtered in three of their four OOC games against #1 and #2 seeds but we aren't talking about who should get the last #2 seed here we are talking about who should get the last spot in the Dance.  

If we were talking about who should get the last #2 seed then those slaughters would definitely be a point against them but in this neighborhood pretty much everybody got slaughtered by some good teams.  Well, everybody who actually played some good teams anyway.  Oh, and Auburn's loss to Houston was close and they had a road win over Florida.  This is all semi-normal for a bubble team.  A few good wins and a mess of losses and trying to offset those and compare against some other team's few good wins and mess of losses.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Eh. I think if you're just barely good enough to SQUEAK into the tournament, you've got bigger problems with your team that year than who you scheduled OOC. If you base your OOC scheduling on the difference between being last four in and first four out... Well... Maybe you've got your priorities messed up.

On the other hand, I think that Purdue quite possibly moved up a seed line based on their OOC. While they finished strong in the BTT, by various metrics they should have been a 3. They were on the 2 line ahead of MSU and Illinois, who had similar resumes, but had H2H wins over Purdue, including MSU winning in Mackey.

In general, I'm with you. I would have left Miami out, and I believe including them is just a feel good story / charity bid. But I don't consider this a hill to die on, because I don't care who gets the last 11 seed. I don't think it's going to be as impactful to OOC scheduling as you do.

I was initially going to simply say that whether or not you get in is MUCH more important than what seed you get but I thought of a viable counter to that point so I'll raise it myself for discussion:

As a fan of a team that just FINALLY got in after three years of missing, to me it is OBVIOUS that the issue of getting in vs. not getting in is MUCH more important.  That said, there is a really good argument against that.  Realistically, if you are on the bubble you aren't going to get very far anyway but if you are (like PU this year) obviously in then you MIGHT go somewhere and it is a lot easier to make the S16 beating a 15 and a 7/10 than it would have been against a 13 and a 5/12.  There is an even bigger difference in making the E8 between being a #2 or 3 and being a #4 or 5 because you duck the #1 until the E8.  

All of that said, if I'm a coach concerned about keeping my job the in/out distinction is still VASTLY more important than the #2 vs #3 vs #4 distinction.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

All of that said, if I'm a coach concerned about keeping my job the in/out distinction is still VASTLY more important than the #2 vs #3 vs #4 distinction. 

And if I'm an AD responsible for scheduling, I'm more interested in weeding out mediocre coaches than rewarding guys who make the tournament at the 8-9 seed in a good year and sneak in as an 11 against a weak schedule in a bad one.