2025-2026 B1G Basketball Thread

[FearlessF]

we talk about it in football probably more, and yet, folks keep putting quality opponents on the non-con schedule

because..... money!!!

[Brutus Buckeye]

[847badgerfan]

Heh.


https://twitter.com/glenn_kinley/status/2033317977773244557

[847badgerfan]

Stolen from Badger247.

[SFBadger96]

They went 17-14, missed a win vs a bodybag because of a snowstorm. In terms of quads finished 5-7, 6-6, 1-1, 5-0, with a bad NET. Non-conference losses were No. 9 Kansas and a weird ACC challenge loss to a Wake team with a respectable record and dragged down by a dog ACC.
...
I was annoyed for a couple minutes, and then I said "Man, that season was shitty, and I don't think that team deserved much. Oh well." And it was fine. Those teams weren't there with fully body bagged non-conferences, but UW was like 11th in the Big Ten. They earned what they got.

This. In a 64-team field, a major on the bubble team has no reason to be upset if they don't make it. None. It's the tournament to determine the champion, and 10th place (or so) in your own conference doesn't make the cut.

[CatsbyAZ]

I'm glad that you have at least SOME respect for quality but I'm having a hard time figuring out what your line is.  So SoS matters in a hypothetical sense if you play 23 Q1 games but it doesn't matter if you club 31 baby seals?  You are a lawyer so you'll understand this question, what is the distinction you are making? 

In terms qualifying for the tournament, SoS didn't matter for analyzing Illinois because they went 15-5 in conference. Same for Miami in the ACC going 13-5 in conference. Same for Texas Tech going 12-6 in the Big 12. SoS never came up with these teams because their conference records qualified them for the Tournament. In this sense, SoS is a secondary consideration for mere qualification.

Notice SoS only gets blown up for a team that goes 7-11 in conference, finishing 12th, and whose lobbying in the expected aftermath is made all the more embarrassing by Bruce Pearl clowning away his credibility. And it was honestly a turn off to a lot of viewers. Like West Virginia's governor last year demanding a federal investigation into why a 19-13 Mountaineers squad (who lost to Big 12 last place finisher Colorado to open the conference tournament) wasn't in the Tournament.

With a total of 68 teams qualifying, there's room to have fun with the fringes and pick and choose the last few spots while ignoring the vocal minority that demands every waking decision be backed with data-driven proofs.

Ridiculous we're going four and five pages deep to go back and forth on who should be the 35th, 36th, and 37th at-large bids. Teams that largely accomplished nothing notable throughout a long regular season and now exercise zero introspection when it comes to realizing they blew countless chances for a conference record of 10-8, a result that would almost certainly qualify Auburn or Oklahoma.

[Riffraft]

I find this argument on the stupid side.  One they decided that they were going to put in so many teams qualifying went out the window.  As the last dozen teams getting in (throwing in the small conferences), you could put in another dozen teams and it will be practically no difference. Basketball has no interest in finding the best team, just the hottest in the tournament.  Football seems to want to head that way. Miami or Auburn or little sisters of the poor makes no difference in the tournament.