2025-2026 B1G Basketball Thread

[medinabuckeye1]

In some ways, I think that's the challenge.

You care very much about a thing that most people don't. And you care so hard you get mad about it, and other people mildly disagreeing or not caring gets you fuming. And then emotions.

And we've gone over it for years. What makes for a better event/product/sport harmony isn't just grabbing the top X teams given the balances of the sport. To most people, low-seeded UNCW pushing high-seeded UNC is a more interesting experience than watching 18-14 Texas go to a Sweet 16.

They might be, and yet they beat another at-large team in the tournament, and that was fun and interesting. And when they're compared to an example you keep flogging, it ends up an example that tells most people, "if Auburn is the thing this argument if fighting for, it's not an argument really worth having."

You're right that nobody cares. People are super fine with the disadvantaged team getting a scrap or two, and enjoy when they do something with it. That it offends you so deeply is something, and maybe the thing that makes the reams of data less persuasive.

Auburn has been my example because they played a REALLY tough schedule and I am adamantly opposed to discouraging that.  The committee discouraged that by choosing an objectively worse team (MUCH worse by NET, TORVIK, KenPom) see above over much better teams (not just Auburn) that played decent schedules.  

[ELA]

What good are "good" matchups if it doesn't matter who wins them?

[MaximumSam]

What good are "good" matchups if it doesn't matter who wins them?

100 percent on that. Fancystats are great but when you start justifying using them over the results of the actual games, then the games themselves become mostly a waste of time.

"We didn't win, but winning was only like the fifth most important part of the experience. Did you see that efficiency metric!"

[medinabuckeye1]

What good are "good" matchups if it doesn't matter who wins them?

Ok, lets talk about quality wins.  Bubble team Q1 wins:

• 6 Texas
• 5 NCST
• 4 SMU
• 4 Oklahoma
• 4 Auburn
• 3 Indiana
• 3 SDSU
• 0 Miami

Again, data.  One of these things is not like the others.  

For that matter, Bubble team Q1 and Q2 wins:

• 11 NCST
• 11 Oklahoma
• 9 SMU
• 9 SDSU
• 7 Auburn
• 7 Texas
• 6 Indiana
• 3 Miami

Again, data.  One of these things is not like the others.  

[medinabuckeye1]

100 percent on that. Fancystats are great but when you start justifying using them over the results of the actual games, then the games themselves become mostly a waste of time.

"We didn't win, but winning was only like the fifth most important part of the experience. Did you see that efficiency metric!"

Nice strawman you beat up there but I have said nothing of the sort and I just listed WINS, not efficiency but WINS in quality match-ups.  Seven of the eight bubble teams had at least six wins in Q1 and Q2 games.  Not efficiency, WINS.  The eighth one had half that number.  

Quality wins should matter.  Unfortunately the committee screwed up and forgot about that and took a feel good emotional story over teams that actually had WINS in quality match-ups.  

[FearlessF]

this pot stirs itself

[bayareabadger]

Auburn has been my example because they played a REALLY tough schedule and I am adamantly opposed to discouraging that.  The committee discouraged that by choosing an objectively worse team (MUCH worse by NET, TORVIK, KenPom) see above over much better teams (not just Auburn) that played decent schedules. 

See, this just feels disingenuous. You’re adamantly opposed to structures that allow the small schools having involvement. or at least that is mostly the way your posts come off.

this outcome does nothing to encourage or discourage anything. The outlook is exactly the same as it’s been(and Miami is just an outlier). If you feel this create a meaningful change, you haven’t been paying attention to the realities of scheduling and how they work.

[ELA]

Ok, lets talk about quality wins.  Bubble team Q1 wins:

• 6 Texas
• 5 NCST
• 4 SMU
• 4 Oklahoma
• 4 Auburn
• 3 Indiana
• 3 SDSU
• 0 Miami

Again, data.  One of these things is not like the others. 

For that matter, Bubble team Q1 and Q2 wins:

• 11 NCST
• 11 Oklahoma
• 9 SMU
• 9 SDSU
• 7 Auburn
• 7 Texas
• 6 Indiana
• 3 Miami

Again, data.  One of these things is not like the others. 

And Miami still had a good enough SOR and WAB to deserve their spot.  No irrelevant metrics change that.

But your argument (which seems to be constantly changing) is that teams are going to schedule down to go undefeated.  Granted, apparently you also think they are going to leave the Big Ten and SEC to jump to the MAC, for the chance to go 31-1 and be a 12 seed.  But if you just reward teams for scheduling hard, even if they lose, then who cares if they schedule hard?  Those "good" games are meaningless, because you just get credit for scheduling them, there are zero stakes

[ELA]

Nice strawman you beat up there but I have said nothing of the sort and I just listed WINS, not efficiency but WINS in quality match-ups.  Seven of the eight bubble teams had at least six wins in Q1 and Q2 games.  Not efficiency, WINS.  The eighth one had half that number. 

Quality wins should matter.  Unfortunately the committee screwed up and forgot about that and took a feel good emotional story over teams that actually had WINS in quality match-ups. 

OK, now do Q1 losses since we are just throwing out irrelevant numbers

[bayareabadger]

It seems also worth noting that even if Auburn flipped a couple of nonconference losses to cupcake wins, their bubble résumé is still pretty unimpressive by the standards of the day.

There is a larger discussion to be had about how teams actually go about scheduling. Especially since there is obviously a chasm of difference between the way, Big schools and small schools do it.

[medinabuckeye1]

And Miami still had a good enough SOR and WAB to deserve their spot.  No irrelevant metrics change that.

As I said before with no response SOR/Resume is fine for comparing reasonably similar teams but fails at the margins. 

The other seven bubble teams were reasonably similar but Miami simply wasn't.  SOS per KenPom:

• 10 Texas
• 14 Auburn
• 27 Oklahoma
• 43 NCST
• 46 Indiana
• 63 SMU
• 74 SDSU
• 252 Miami

Data.  One of these things is not like the others. 

SOR and WAB fail at the margins.  I've said this repeatedly.  

But your argument (which seems to be constantly changing) is that teams are going to schedule down to go undefeated.  

When did my argument change.  I have been absolutely consistent that SOS does and should matter and that the committee made a mistake by not weighting it sufficiently.  Yes, I think that could impact scheduling.  

(A)pparently you also think they are going to leave the Big Ten and SEC to jump to the MAC, for the chance to go 31-1 and be a 12 seed.  

I have never said that and they will not for $$$ reasons.  

But if you just reward teams for scheduling hard, even if they lose, then who cares if they schedule hard?  Those "good" games are meaningless, because you just get credit for scheduling them, there are zero stakes

Asked and answered counselor.  Seven of the eight bubble teams won at least 3 Q1 games.  Seven of the eight bubble teams won at least 6 combined Q1 and Q2 games.  I have never said that teams should be rewarded for scheduling hard even if they lose but I do think that they shouldn't be punished for losing hard games when that punishment benefits a team that didn't even play a quality opponent.  

In my view if you are comparing bubble teams I would consider these two things to be equal:

• Played a #1 seed and lost big.  
• Played a 300+ ranked team and won big.  

Both are simply expected for a bubble team.  I wouldn't punish/reward either.  

[medinabuckeye1]

OK, now do Q1 losses since we are just throwing out irrelevant numbers

Well there is one sure way to avoid Q1 losses!  

[betarhoalphadelta]

You're right that nobody cares. People are super fine with the disadvantaged team getting a scrap or two, and enjoy when they do something with it. That it offends you so deeply is something, and maybe the thing that makes the reams of data less persuasive.

Admittedly, what I read from @medinabuckeye1 is also something else... It's that seed lines 1-4 largely get a glorified bye by taking on teams that legitimately shouldn't even threaten them. He'd rather see teams 1-16 in the seed lines play teams 49-64 in NET or whatever "power ranking" we choose than see them play teams that might be 100-250+. He views those as more compelling matchups to watch than the top 16 beating up on patsies. 

(medina, hopefully I'm not misrepresenting you)

And truth is, he's not wrong... But as you point out, it's a preference. Just as some people would prefer the tournament being the top 64 teams, others like the "Cinderella story". Both sides should understand that it's not black/white or right/wrong... It's preference. 

[ELA]

I also don't see a problem with giving they top 16 teams a "bye".

Seems to mean doing well in your games matters.  It also means the teams "on the bubble" playing for something in early March are at least mid, and not bad teams with a big enough fan base to be in a good conference.  It also means the small conference tournaments mean something.

Just putting in the best 68 lessens the reward for being great, makes the bubble teams inarguably worse, and the small conference tournaments would be meaningless.

All in the name of "not discouraging good scheduling."  I have yet to see any evidence of teams doing that.  And the "good" games aren't actually good, they are meaningless exhibitions between teams comfortably in the tournament.

If we were constantly getting 13 seeds winning the national championship, if just getting in meant you had a chance of winning, then sure, put the most talented 68 in.  But they aren't.  So why would we want to worsen the product, make the regular season even less meaningful just to make sure USC (who would be comfortably in) would get like a 25th chance to reprove how mediocre they are?