2026-2027 B1G Basketball Thread

[847badgerfan]

But hey, considering IU has only gone twice in the last decade, I'm sure they're happy they might get in!
 

Blows me away that they have sucked so long while spending so much money on players. I guest chemistry/coaching still matters to a degree.

[847badgerfan]

Blackwell is gone.


https://twitter.com/travisbranham_/status/2041156202269147549?s=46Some

[FearlessF]

the portal & the draft?

let the bidding begin

[medinabuckeye1]

I see no reason for expansion. Since 1985, no team higher than an 8 seed has ever won it. So expansion is not about including more "worthy teams" that were unfairly excluded. It's just expansion for expansion's sake, i.e. making sure a few more major conference teams can say they didn't miss the tournament.

I can't easily find the information behind this but, I *THINK*:

In 1985 there were less total conferences.  Thus from 1985-present with no expansion it has become MORE difficult to make the Tournament as an at-large.  

I believe that the "first four" was added to address this.  Ie, expanding from 64 to 68 allowed an additional four at-large teams and I believe this was done to get the at-large pool back up to around what it had been in 1985.  

Obviously this is all complicated by the fact that not all auto-bids are the same.  Teams like Purdue (B1G auto-bid), Florida (SEC auto-bid), Duke (ACC auto-bid) would have gotten at-large bids even if they had lost their CGs so the auto-bid is irrelevant.  Conversely, one-bid league Champions such as Howard (MEAC auto-bid), UMBC (America East auto-bid), Prairie View (SWAC auto-bid), and Lehigh (Patriot auto-bid) are strictly charity-bids handed out to teams that clearly and obviously are NOT among the top 64, 68, 76, or 80 teams in the country.  

The bottom line is that adding bad leagues adds additional charity bids and dilutes the pool because those bids eliminate vastly superior middling power conference teams.  

[medinabuckeye1]

You’re gonna end up with more mid major charity cases just because you have to fill out the bottom of the large pool. And you will drive down the already not that high quality of the last power conference teams who get in.

You are using "charity" in a unique way.  

If you have a 64, 68, 76, or 80 team tournament then the non-charity way to fill it out is to take the best (however you determine best) 64, 68, 76, or 80 teams.  

Charity is taking teams that are clearly outside of the best 64, 68, 76, or 80 teams.  

The charity in the NCAAT isn't taking power conference bubble teams.  Those teams are ALL in the top 64.  The charity is taking the champions of the MEAC, SWAC, Patriot, and America East.  Those teams are all NOT in the top 64.  

FWIW:  Charity is also taking emotional feel good mid majors that almost went undefeated.  

I'm all for ending charity and just taking the best 64.  Actually, if we ended the charity I'd be fine with taking the top 32.  

[bayareabadger]

Hate to see it with Blackwell, but sort of expected. 

The current offense maximizes scoring wings, so hopefully, that drop-off won't be too bad. 

[bayareabadger]

You are using "charity" in a unique way. 

If you have a 64, 68, 76, or 80 team tournament then the non-charity way to fill it out is to take the best (however you determine best) 64, 68, 76, or 80 teams. 

Charity is taking teams that are clearly outside of the best 64, 68, 76, or 80 teams. 

The charity in the NCAAT isn't taking power conference bubble teams.  Those teams are ALL in the top 64.  The charity is taking the champions of the MEAC, SWAC, Patriot, and America East.  Those teams are all NOT in the top 64. 

FWIW:  Charity is also taking emotional feel good mid majors that almost went undefeated. 

I'm all for ending charity and just taking the best 64.  Actually, if we ended the charity I'd be fine with taking the top 32. 

I was using "charity" in your phrasing. So mid-majors that had a good year with an impressive record. This gives you more of them along with more 16-15 Power conference teams. 

I'm of the opinion that we don't need more of them. 

[847badgerfan]

Hate to see it with Blackwell, but sort of expected.

The current offense maximizes scoring wings, so hopefully, that drop-off won't be too bad.

The starting number right now is $5 Mil.

He's very good - Robin, not Batman, but somebody will overpay.

[bayareabadger]

The starting number right now is $5 Mil.

He's very good - Robin, not Batman, but somebody will overpay.

Going to be very interested to see what kind of role he falls into and how he flourishes there.

He’s a very good ball player, but situation can mean a lot. 

[FearlessF]

Hoiberg doesn't have that type of $$$

[betarhoalphadelta]

The bottom line is that adding bad leagues adds additional charity bids and dilutes the pool because those bids eliminate vastly superior middling power conference teams. 

Yes, but I don't care about diluting the pool, because nobody beyond the 8 seed has ever won the whole thing. Once you get beyond a 4 seed, it's only happened 3 times total (6, 7, 8 seeds, once each) out of 40 tournaments. And although the bracket odds web site hasn't been updated for this year's tourney yet, we've got a 1 vs 2 matchup, so it's not happening this year either. 

So, why are we worried about limiting a handful of "vastly superior middling power conference teams" when they have no realistic shot at winning it all. It's just substituting one preference for another. 

And going to 76 or 80 to get there just dilutes the fields even more, adding more inventory of games on Tues/Weds that teams have little time to prepare for, and aren't needed. 

I say go back to 64. This "first four" thing is garbage. 

[847badgerfan]

Yes, but I don't care about diluting the pool, because nobody beyond the 8 seed has ever won the whole thing. Once you get beyond a 4 seed, it's only happened 3 times total (6, 7, 8 seeds, once each) out of 40 tournaments. And although the bracket odds web site hasn't been updated for this year's tourney yet, we've got a 1 vs 2 matchup, so it's not happening this year either.

So, why are we worried about limiting a handful of "vastly superior middling power conference teams" when they have no realistic shot at winning it all. It's just substituting one preference for another.

And going to 76 or 80 to get there just dilutes the fields even more, adding more inventory of games on Tues/Weds that teams have little time to prepare for, and aren't needed.

I say go back to 64. This "first four" thing is garbage.

48 was good.

[bayareabadger]

I say go back to 64. This "first four" thing is garbage.

The older I get and the worse the bubble gets, the more the first four feels kind of fine for me.

You through some odds and ends teams in there, let them figure it out. I probably wouldn't have the 16s in, but I get that people like how that moves things around. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

The older I get and the worse the bubble gets, the more the first four feels kind of fine for me.

You through some odds and ends teams in there, let them figure it out. I probably wouldn't have the 16s in, but I get that people like how that moves things around.

Yeah, but it doesn't feel like it's the "real" tournament yet. It feels like merely an appetizer. 

But like the CFP, expanding once is just a prelude to expanding again. They expanded to 65. Then 68. Now they're talking 76. Might as well just say screw it and go to 128, and make it a 4-weekend tournament. Right? Wouldn't that be swell??

Is this really making the product better? 

And what does it do to fan interest, which we all know is heavily bolstered by brackets? One play-in or four play-in games is manageable... Now we'll have twelve play-in games on Tuesday and Wednesday? 

This is a solution in search of a problem.