2025-2026 B1G Basketball Thread

[bayareabadger]

Zona was really good? 
who did they beat outside the Big 12 & the dance?

They ended the regular season top-3 in a bunch of resume metrics and predictives. They were real good.

The issue was they were just such a power inside team and didn't shoot that much. And if they ran into a team that could slow their burley guys inside, they were short a counterpunch. 

[medinabuckeye1]

This seems like a pretty emotional argument. It's the NIT, man. No one takes NIT results seriously.

This has gotta be the weirdest thing to cape for. Like, cape for a smaller field, but thirsting for the honor of the 11th-place team in the SEC, lord how far we've done fallen.

It isn't emotional at all it is all about the data.  Playing good teams is tough.  That is reality.  Pretending that clubbing baby seals proves something is emotional.  

I don't like Auburn and I get the whole 11th place SEC team thing.  My objection is the double standard.  If Ohio State's best win was a 2 point home win over Akron the Buckeyes would be 7-25 and nobody would ask why they missed the NCAAT.  

How about we select based on accomplishments, would that be ok?  

[medinabuckeye1]

Since we’re still discussing 17-16 Auburn missing the Tournament, the main point you’ve driven for nearly a month now is that the Committee neglected Strength of Schedules. That’s not at all the case. The committee heavily weighed SoS, but it wasn’t the sole selection factor; your emphasis on SoS angles for SoS to be the ONLY factor that should be considered. If that’s the case, there’s no point in a committee. Just let computers select and seed the teams based on a running SoS calculation.

No, SoS shouldn't be the only factor and I never said that it should.  For example, according to KenPom Mississippi State had the #28 SoS and went below .500 against it.  They ranked #102 in KenPom's rankings and I don't think anybody would argue for their inclusion in the field.  

That said, it should be obvious to everyone that Mississippi State's 13 wins against the #28 SoS is more impressive than Morgan State's 14 wins against the #363 SoS.  

[medinabuckeye1]

They ended the regular season top-3 in a bunch of resume metrics and predictives. They were real good.

The issue was they were just such a power inside team and didn't shoot that much. And if they ran into a team that could slow their burley guys inside, they were short a counterpunch.

In a large tournament being a one trick pony is almost never going to be successful because you will inevitably run into a team that has an answer for your one trick.  

[medinabuckeye1]

FWIW:

Michigan is the 43rd #1 seed to make it to the National Championship Game since the 85 expansion.  

UCONN is the 13th #2 seed to make it.  

The previous 40 NCs were won by:

• 26 #1 seeds
• 5 #2 seeds
• 4 #3 seeds
• 2 #4 seeds
• 1 #6 seed
• 1 #7 seed
• 1 #8 seed

So we will either see our 27th #1 seed or our 6th #2 seed win it tonight.  

[bayareabadger]

It isn't emotional at all it is all about the data.  Playing good teams is tough.  That is reality.  Pretending that clubbing baby seals proves something is emotional. 

I don't like Auburn and I get the whole 11th place SEC team thing.  My objection is the double standard.  If Ohio State's best win was a 2 point home win over Akron the Buckeyes would be 7-25 and nobody would ask why they missed the NCAAT. 

How about we select based on accomplishments, would that be ok? 

Tell me about the seal data. How old are these seals? What kind of clubs are they using?

we’re talking about data, right? Not one’s particular burning disdains.

(there’s a whole bunch of ways to present this in a context that makes sense and is very agreeable, and almost none of them involve White knighting for Auburn. Puffing up the tigers just weakens your point)

[bayareabadger]

In a large tournament being a one trick pony is almost never going to be successful because you will inevitably run into a team that has an answer for your one trick. 

Sometimes you might not, but overpowering people with only one guy taller than 6-foot-8 might be an issue. 

Though Michigan is historically large. Perhaps in another year, the tricks are enough. 

[medinabuckeye1]

Tell me about the seal data. How old are these seals? What kind of clubs are they using?

Data:  The entire Big Ten combined had only ONE Q4 loss, by Rutgers:

• 3-0 Michigan
• 5-0 Illinois
• 3-0 Purdue
• 4-0 MSU
• 6-0 Nebraska
• 6-0 Wisconsin
• 6-0 Iowa
• 6-0 Ohio State
• 7-0 UCLA
• 7-0 Indiana
• 5-0 Washington
• 5-0 Northwestern
• 3-0 USC
• 7-0 Minnesota
• 6-0 Oregon
• 5-1 Rutgers
• 5-0 Maryland
• 7-0 Penn State

That is data.  Winning Q4 games is not an accomplishment.  It is analogous to clubbing baby seals.  

Here is Q3:

• 6-0 Michigan
• 7-0 Illinois
• 7-0 Purdue
• 7-0 MSU
• 5-0 Nebraska
• 5-1 Wisconsin
• 6-2 Iowa
• 6-0 Ohio State
• 6-0 UCLA
• 5-0 Indiana
• 5-2 Washington
• 6-1 Northwestern
• 6-1 USC
• 1-5 Minnesota
• 3-3 Oregon
• 7-0 Rutgers
• 3-3 Maryland
• 3-4 Penn State

That is data.  Winning Q3 games is not much of an accomplishment either, at least for an NCAAT team.  The only B1G teams to get in with Q3 losses were Wisconsin and Iowa.  Meanwhile IU and RU went undefeated in Q3 games and did NOT get in.  

This is why winning Q3 and Q4 games means next-to-nothing to me in the consideration of at-large teams.  

That is why I object to including Miami.  They went 31-1 but:

• Three wins were over teams so dreadful that they don't even count as Q4 games.  
• 15-1 in Q4
• 10-0 in Q3
• 3-0 in Q2

The 28 wins in Q3 and lower games prove nothing.  That doesn't leave you with much and the dreadful Q4 loss absolutely should have disqualified them.  Indiana, Washington, Northwestern, and USC were all undefeated in Q4 games.  

we’re talking about data, right? Not one’s particular burning disdains.

Yes, data, see above.  

(there’s a whole bunch of ways to present this in a context that makes sense and is very agreeable, and almost none of them involve White knighting for Auburn. Puffing up the tigers just weakens your point)

I don't care about Auburn they are just the example.  According to yahoo sports the first four out were:

• 19-15/7-11 Oklahoma:  7-0 in Q4
• 17-16/7-11 Auburn:  6-0 in Q4
• 22-11/14-6 SDSU:  6-0 in Q4
• 18-14/9-11 Indiana:  7-0 in Q4

The last four in (known because they played in Dayton) were:

• 20-13/10-8 NCST:  4-1 in Q4
• 18-14/9-9 Texas:  7-0 in Q4
• 20-13/8-10 SMU:  6-0 in Q4
• 31-1/18-0 Miami:  15-1 in Q4

Of the 8 teams closest to the cut line only Miami and NCST had Q4 losses.  NCST made up for theirs with five Q1 wins.  NCAAT worthy teams don't lose Q4 games without offsetting quality wins.  

Also among those eight teams, KenPom:

• 31 Texas
• 36 Auburn
• 37 NCST
• 41 Oklahoma
• 45 Indiana
• 48 SMU
• 49 SDSU
• 90 Miami

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

Also among those eight teams, NET:

• 36 NCST
• 37 SMU
• 38 Auburn
• 41 Indiana
• 42 Texas
• 47 SDSU
• 48 Oklahoma
• 64 Miami

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

Also among those eight teams, Torvik:

• 32 Indiana
• 37 Oklahoma
• 38 Texas
• 40 Auburn
• 43 NCST
• 44 SDSU
• 49 SMU
• 87 Miami

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

Do I really need more metrics?  In the three listed seven of the eight bubble teams are between 31-49.  The eighth is Miami who comes in at 64, 87, and 90.  They are literally the worst at-large team in the history of the NCAAT and nobody seems to care.  

[ELA]

Again, stop with the predictive metrics.  Irrelevant

[bayareabadger]

Data:  The entire Big Ten combined had only ONE Q4 loss, by Rutgers:

• 3-0 Michigan
• 5-0 Illinois
• 3-0 Purdue
• 4-0 MSU
• 6-0 Nebraska
• 6-0 Wisconsin
• 6-0 Iowa
• 6-0 Ohio State
• 7-0 UCLA
• 7-0 Indiana
• 5-0 Washington
• 5-0 Northwestern
• 3-0 USC
• 7-0 Minnesota
• 6-0 Oregon
• 5-1 Rutgers
• 5-0 Maryland
• 7-0 Penn State

That is data.  Winning Q4 games is not an accomplishment.  It is analogous to clubbing baby seals. 

Here is Q3:

• 6-0 Michigan
• 7-0 Illinois
• 7-0 Purdue
• 7-0 MSU
• 5-0 Nebraska
• 5-1 Wisconsin
• 6-2 Iowa
• 6-0 Ohio State
• 6-0 UCLA
• 5-0 Indiana
• 5-2 Washington
• 6-1 Northwestern
• 6-1 USC
• 1-5 Minnesota
• 3-3 Oregon
• 7-0 Rutgers
• 3-3 Maryland
• 3-4 Penn State

That is data.  Winning Q3 games is not much of an accomplishment either, at least for an NCAAT team.  The only B1G teams to get in with Q3 losses were Wisconsin and Iowa.  Meanwhile IU and RU went undefeated in Q3 games and did NOT get in. 

This is why winning Q3 and Q4 games means next-to-nothing to me in the consideration of at-large teams. 

That is why I object to including Miami.  They went 31-1 but:

• Three wins were over teams so dreadful that they don't even count as Q4 games. 
• 15-1 in Q4
• 10-0 in Q3
• 3-0 in Q2

The 28 wins in Q3 and lower games prove nothing.  That doesn't leave you with much and the dreadful Q4 loss absolutely should have disqualified them.  Indiana, Washington, Northwestern, and USC were all undefeated in Q4 games. 
Yes, data, see above. 
I don't care about Auburn they are just the example.  According to yahoo sports the first four out were:

• 19-15/7-11 Oklahoma:  7-0 in Q4
• 17-16/7-11 Auburn:  6-0 in Q4
• 22-11/14-6 SDSU:  6-0 in Q4
• 18-14/9-11 Indiana:  7-0 in Q4

The last four in (known because they played in Dayton) were:

• 20-13/10-8 NCST:  4-1 in Q4
• 18-14/9-9 Texas:  7-0 in Q4
• 20-13/8-10 SMU:  6-0 in Q4
• 31-1/18-0 Miami:  15-1 in Q4

Of the 8 teams closest to the cut line only Miami and NCST had Q4 losses.  NCST made up for theirs with five Q1 wins.  NCAAT worthy teams don't lose Q4 games without offsetting quality wins. 

Also among those eight teams, KenPom:

• 31 Texas
• 36 Auburn
• 37 NCST
• 41 Oklahoma
• 45 Indiana
• 48 SMU
• 49 SDSU
• 90 Miami

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

Also among those eight teams, NET:

• 36 NCST
• 37 SMU
• 38 Auburn
• 41 Indiana
• 42 Texas
• 47 SDSU
• 48 Oklahoma
• 64 Miami

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

Also among those eight teams, Torvik:

• 32 Indiana
• 37 Oklahoma
• 38 Texas
• 40 Auburn
• 43 NCST
• 44 SDSU
• 49 SMU
• 87 Miami

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

Do I really need more metrics?  In the three listed seven of the eight bubble teams are between 31-49.  The eighth is Miami who comes in at 64, 87, and 90.  They are literally the worst at-large team in the history of the NCAAT and nobody seems to care. 

I don’t see much about seals. I see things about basketball teams. No seals. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

[bayareabadger]

I don't care about Auburn they are just the example. 

......

They are literally the worst at-large team in the history of the NCAAT and nobody seems to care. 

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. 

[medinabuckeye1]

Again, stop with the predictive metrics.  Irrelevant

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.  

How about results.  These are the four 11 seeds that made the 64 team field:

• Texas beat #6 BYU and #3 Gonzaga (another weak SoS issue) then lost a close game to #2 Purdue
• VCU beat #6 UNC then lost badly to #3 Illinois
• USF lost by 4 to #6 Louisville
• Miami got run out of the gym by #6 Tennessee

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

The data, the results, pick one.  No matter how you slice it 2026 Miami is the worst at-large team in the history of the NCAAT.  

[medinabuckeye1]

I don’t see much about seals. I see things about basketball teams. No seals.

I literally said in the post you quoted that Q4 games were analogous to clubbing baby seals.  It is an analogy.  If you don't like it just mentally replace it with "played EXTREMELY bad teams".