2025-2026 B1G Basketball Thread

[ELA]

The conference tournaments are a stupid money grab.  Winning them is on par with winning Maui

[ELA]

I also think if you proved over 20 games that you arent the best team in your conference,.you have zero right to have a shot to be the best team in the nation.  Yet, we have people arguing that the 11th best team in their conference might be the best team in the nation? 

[medinabuckeye1]

It depends on what your belief that the tournament should represent.  If you believe that it should only comprise of the "best" 64 (/68) teams in the nation, then you would likely believe that the smaller leagues shouldn't get any automatic qualifiers at all.

I have a solution that *MIGHT* solve the Miami issue.  I'm ok with the hybrid nature and automatic qualifiers to an extent.  However, I don't think that the Champion of ANY league no matter how awful should get an auto-bid.  I think we should go back to 64 and the rule should be that you get an auto-bid but only if your conference has at least one team ranked in the top-128 (so double the size of the tournament).  For this year (based on most recent NET rankings as posted on the NCAA site as I type this right now 3/12/26) that would eliminate:

• BigSky - best team is #129 Montana State:  NOTE that MTST could probably play their way in by winning the BigSky Tournament because they are REALLY close.  
• Patriot - best team is #134 Navy
• SoCon - best team is #135 ETSU
• ASUN - best team is #165 Austin Peay
• OVC - best team is #172 Tennessee State
• MAAC - best team is #178 Merrimack
• NEC - best team is #196 LIU
• MEAC - best team is #200 Howard
• America East - best team is #201 UMBC
• SWAC - best team is #254 Bethune-Cookman

If you took out those ten tallest midgets you'd have enough room that Miami would probably get a legitimate at-large bid and honestly if it was close and I was on the committee I'd vote to include them.  I wouldn't vote for it as-is because it is NOT close.  

[medinabuckeye1]

The conference tournaments are a stupid money grab.  Winning them is on par with winning Maui

I 100% agree but I have a question that we might have the ability to research and answer here:

Is it even successful as a money-grab?  

I *THINK* the NCAA rule is that you can play 31 regular season games (it isn't that simple because you have to include a MTE or two to get there but functionally it is a 31 game regular season limitation) then you CAN play a League Tournament.  

If that (above) is the case then it obviously IS successful as a money grab because the choice is an actual dichotomy either:

• Play a League Tournament, or
• Do NOT play a League Tournament.  

In that case, anything the league makes off the league tournament is more than nothing so it is successful as a money grab.  

My argument (referenced above) is that there should be a choice between:

• Play a 31 game regular season and a league tournament, or
• Play a 33 game regular season and no league tournament.  

That would be almost the exact same number of games because the league tournament has 17 games and two additional league games per school would be 18 more games.  I think we would actually make MORE money playing two more league games (one more home game per team) in front of actual fans rather than playing 17 games in front of empty seats in the United Center.  

[medinabuckeye1]

I also think if you proved over 20 games that you arent the best team in your conference,.you have zero right to have a shot to be the best team in the nation.  Yet, we have people arguing that the 11th best team in their conference might be the best team in the nation?

I have no dog in this fight as my team clearly and obviously is neither the best team in the nation nor the best team in the league.  That said, the example you gave is a little extreme.  Michigan is 19-1 and beat Ohio State twice and Ohio State is 12-8 so there isn't a question.  However, if Michigan was 19-1 with a loss to Ohio State in the only game played between the two and Ohio State was say 18-2 or 17-3 having played a tougher schedule than Michigan then I would fiercely disagree with the idea that you have to win your league to be the best in the nation.  What if Ohio State got stuck playing Nebraska, Michigan State, Illinois, Wisconsin, UCLA, and Purdue twice each and still went 18-2 while Michigan played a comparatively lightweight schedule and went 19-1?  

[SFBadger96]

Well, Wisconsin very nearly Wisconsined away its 18-point lead over Washington, but hung on for the win. Phew. Let's see how the three is flowing tomorrow against Illinois.

[grillrat]

I have no dog in this fight as my team clearly and obviously is neither the best team in the nation nor the best team in the league.  That said, the example you gave is a little extreme.  Michigan is 19-1 and beat Ohio State twice and Ohio State is 12-8 so there isn't a question.  However, if Michigan was 19-1 with a loss to Ohio State in the only game played between the two and Ohio State was say 18-2 or 17-3 having played a tougher schedule than Michigan then I would fiercely disagree with the idea that you have to win your league to be the best in the nation.  What if Ohio State got stuck playing Nebraska, Michigan State, Illinois, Wisconsin, UCLA, and Purdue twice each and still went 18-2 while Michigan played a comparatively lightweight schedule and went 19-1? 

While I don't disagree with what you are saying, these are two different arguments.  You are comparing #1 versus (likely) #2 in the conference and who is the more worthy.  ELA is saying more likely that you don't to deserve to be in consideration to have a chance to be champion if you can't even finish in the top half of your league.

[medinabuckeye1]

While I don't disagree with what you are saying, these are two different arguments.  You are comparing #1 versus (likely) #2 in the conference and who is the more worthy.  ELA is saying more likely that you don't to deserve to be in consideration to have a chance to be champion if you can't even finish in the top half of your league.

I don't disagree except that being in (or barely out of) the top half of the B1G is a MUCH bigger accomplishment than winning the Big Sky, Patriot, SoCon, ASUN, OVC, MAAC, NEC, MEAC, America East, or SWAC.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

It depends on what your belief that the tournament should represent.  If you believe that it should only comprise of the "best" 64 (/68) teams in the nation, then you would likely believe that the smaller leagues shouldn't get any automatic qualifiers at all.

While football is generally considered that way, the NCAA tournament has always been a little different (at least in modern times).  The NCAA tourney has always been more of an inclusive event and that belief has been justified by the countless Cinderellas that have been produced over the years.  Yeah, almost all Cinderellas barely make it past the sweet 16, but the fact that so many exist at all proves that any team can be competitive at this level.

It's REALLY hard to go undefeated in the regular season, even with a creampuff schedule.  Miami OH is one of only 25 teams to have ever done it (out of what?, something like 26 leagues @ 8 teams each for 75 years = 15,000+ attempts).  They absolutely deserve to be rewarded for that.

I'm not going to weigh in on Miami (OH) specifically, because I don't really know and haven't followed their schedule.

But I think the NCAAT is a good blend of:

• Automatic qualifiers
• The best of the rest

Obviously Miami (OH) isn't #1. Per @medinabuckeye1 , is Miami (OH) included in #2? I don't know, but the determination should be based on resume, not a feel good story.


If you schedule terribly, maybe you need to win your conference tournament to get a spot. No matter how many Little Sisters of the Poor you beat up on. Because you can't argue "while they're 31-0!" when they wouldn't be close to 31-0 if they played anyone with a pulse.

And you also can't claim "they're undefeated so they should get in!" To be undefeated they'd have won their conference tournament and gotten in. They're not undefeated. They just lost. They were undefeated. And then they lost to a REALLY bad team. It's not enough to say they were undefeated in the regular season. Nothing matters until Selection Sunday. They're not undefeated on Selection Sunday.

[MaximumSam]

 It's not enough to say they were undefeated in the regular season. 

Well why not? It's happened like 20 times. In the history of college basketball. Seems like a pretty good bullet on the ole resume.

[medinabuckeye1]

Seems like a pretty good bullet on the ole resume.

Yeah, it is not.  Any legit tournament team would be EXPECTED to win all of those game and ANY loss on Miami's schedule would be problematic for a team looking for an at-large bid.  

[MaximumSam]

Yeah, it is not.  Any legit tournament team would be EXPECTED to win all of those game and ANY loss on Miami's schedule would be problematic for a team looking for an at-large bid. 

The math ain't mathin' on that

[betarhoalphadelta]

Well why not? It's happened like 20 times. In the history of college basketball. Seems like a pretty good bullet on the ole resume.

It should be a pretty good bullet on the resume. But it matters who you play. It's not that great of a bullet if all your opponents were shooting blanks. 

The NCAAT, unlike the CFP, has a simple and objective way to get into the field: win your conference tourney. 

Fail to do that, and you have to be evaluated by resume. And we have some semi-objective tools for that, such as NET, and other things that evaluate a team in ways that are perhaps a little more nuanced than W/L record. Such as the fact that 4 of their wins went to OT, and another 5 wins determined in regulation were 1-score games. All against weak competition. But no, they had a great W/L record, right?!?! I mean, if all we care about is W/L, at 31-1 they should be a 1 seed!

Again, I'm not arguing necessarily for or against Miami (OH) specifically. Just saying that we've built an objective path for teams in weak conferences to be included. If you don't make it objectively, then you're falling on the mercy of the court and you need to wait for the jury to rule. 

[medinabuckeye1]

The math ain't mathin' on that

You are smarter than this.  

Here is some more math for you:

• #54 in NET
• #93 in KenPom
• #87 in Torvik (You usually cite this one)

Those are all BEFORE they LOST to a pathetic (#203 in NET/#195 in KenPom/#171 in Torvik) team.  

I think that really @betarhoalphadelta summarized my feelings very well here:

Just saying that we've built an objective path for teams in weak conferences to be included. If you don't make it objectively, then you're falling on the mercy of the court and you need to wait for the jury to rule.

They had a chance to get a charity bid that we specifically reserve for tallest midgets who spend the year beating up on patsies.  They FAILED at that.  Now they are thrown in with the rest of the non-Champions and their accomplishment of going 31-1 against the little sisters of the poor shouldn't even get them in the discussion because Indiana's accomplishment of going 18-14 required the Hoosiers to win 3 Q1 games and 3 more Q2 games.  The Redskins RedHawks only won two Q2 games and ZERO Q1 games.  

Oh, and lets talk about undefeated and "the math":  Indiana was UNDEFEATED in Q3 and Q4 games.  They went 5-0 in Q3 and 7-0 in Q4.  Miami was NOT undefeated in such games because their loss to UMASS will be either Q3 or Q4 depending on how much UMASS moves.  

You want to know who else is actually undefeated in Q3 and Q4 games unlike Miami who lost one of those?

• SMU is 11-0 in Q3 and Q4 and a bubble team
• Indiana is 12-0 in Q3 and Q4 and a bubble team that is NOT going to get in
• VCU is 20-0 in Q3 and Q4 and a bubble team
• VaTech is 11-0 in Q3 and Q4 and a bubble team