CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on April 22, 2026, 02:30:56 PM
-
First the data:
Here are all of the 13+ seeds to win their first round NCAAT game post-COVID:
2021:
- #13 Ohio over #4 Virginia, blown out by #5 Creighton.
- #13 North Texas over #4 Purdue, blown out by #5 Villanova.
- #14 Abilene Christian over #3 Texas, blown out by #11 UCLA.
- #15 Oral Roberts over #2 Ohio State, beat #7 Florida in R32 and lost to #3 Arkansas in the S16.
2022:
- #15 St. Peters over #2 Kentucky, beat #7 Murray State in R32, beat #3 Purdue in S16, blown out by #8 UNC in E8.
2023:
- #13 Furman over #4 Virginia, blown out by #5 SDSU.
- #15 Princeton over #2 Arizona, blew out #7 Mizzou in R32, lost to #6 Creighton in S16.
- #16 FDU over #1 Purdue, lost to #9 FAU.
2024:
- #13 Yale over #4 Auburn, blown out by #5 SDSU.
- #14 Oakland over #3 Kentucky, lost to #11 NCST.
That is it. There were none in 2025 and again none in 2026.
2021-2023 was the all-time high water mark for the 13-16 seeds. Over those three years 8 of them survived the first round, three made the S16, and one was the only 13+ to EVER win a second weekend game when St. Peters knocked of Purdue in the S16 and thus became the only 13+ to ever make it to the E8. The 8 that won their opener tied the most ever for a three-year period and:
- The four 13+ seeds to win in 2021 was the most ever in a single tournament.
- In 2022 St. Peters made the deepest NCAAT penetration by a 13+ in the history of the NCAAT.
- The three 13+ seeds to win in 2023 tied the second most ever in a single tournament.
Now my analysis/theory:
NIL and the Portal are making the gap between the haves and have-nots MUCH wider because it is hitting both sides of the equation. On the high side, teams that will end up as 1-4 seeds are bringing in reinforcements in the form of upper-class contributors from other schools. That is making the 1-4 seeds better. Simultaneously the 13-16 seeds are getting worse because some of those reinforcements that the 1-4 seeds are bringing in are guys who previously played for one-bid league teams and in the previous era would have been Seniors at schools like Ohio/NTX/Abilene/Oral/StPetes/Furman/Princeton/FDU/Yale/Oakland.
There also was a little bit of a delay at which time things actually swung the opposite way for a VERY brief time. IMHO, this was caused by the extra year of eligibility granted due to COVID. My supposition here is that the extra year didn't really help the 1-4 seeds much because most of their talent isn't sticking around for 5 years anyway because the NBA is calling. However, the teams that end up as 13-16 seeds don't have any NBA talent (if they did they wouldn't be 13-16 seeds) so a LOT of their players stuck around for an extra year either just to enjoy an extra year of college or for the love of the game or whatever but there was a shelf-life on that:
- COVID Year 2020 seniors exhausted their eligibility in 2021.
- COVID Year 2020 juniors exhausted their eligibility in 2022.
- COVID Year 2020 sophomores exhausted their eligibility in 2023.
- COVID Year 2020 freshman exhausted their eligibility in 2024.
Once those extra-year COVID guys moved on the 13+ seeds crashed and they haven't won an NCAAT game since. In 2026 most of them weren't even close:
- #16 Siena lost to Dook by 6
- #13 Cal Baptist lost to Kansas by 8
- #14 Kennesaw St lost to Gonzaga by 9
- #14 Wright St lost to Virginia by 9
- #15 Furman lost to UCONN by 11
- #13 Hawaii lost to Arkansas by 19
- #13 Hofstra lost to Alabama by 20
- #16 Howard lost to Michigan by 21
- #14 NDAK ST lost to MSU by 25
- #13 Troy lost to Nebraska by 29
- #15 Idaho lost to Houston by 31
- #15 Queens lost to Purdue by 33
- #16 Long Island lost to Arizona by 34
- #15 Tennessee St lost to ISU by 34
- #14 Penn lost to Illinois by 35
- #16 Prairie View A&M got more than doubled up losing to Florida by 59
-
With NIL, the the talent level of CBB seems to be increasing dramatically. Euroball and fringe NBA prospects now make more money here instead of somewhere else.
With the portal, players basically get sorted out by ability and who can pay. Almost perfect market dynamics.
-
There are 1300 +/- professional players in the portal at this time.
How many shot themselves in the foot?
We do not know yet.
-
more than 50%
-
There are 1300 +/- professional players in the portal at this time.
How many shot themselves in the foot?
We do not know yet.
I suppose some of it depends on what it means shot themselves in the foot.
One thing that’s interesting about the portal is people tend to treat most in there as someone who had a certain kind of stable situation and is sort of betting on themselves.
And chances are, a lot of them are kids just taking a flyer or who fell off rosters for various reasons. And we probably understate the number of kids who were disappearing off rosters in the pre-portal era.
-
Of course, there was a lot of house-Creaning going on before the portal.
It's much easier for the coaches now. Tough conversations now go both ways.
(Be careful what you wish for - they wanted this.)
Of the four who left, there were two guys who really didn't want to transfer this year. They got the tough conversation.
One was Blackwell, who will make more money next season at Dook than he will for the rest of his life.
The other one was AB, who put his name in, then wanted to come back, but the money and space were already gone. Tough conversation.
-
Of course, there was a lot of house-Creaning going on before the portal.
It's much easier for the coaches now. Tough conversations now go both ways.
(Be careful what you wish for - they wanted this.)
Of the four who left, there were two guys who really didn't want to transfer this year. They got the tough conversation.
One was Blackwell, who will make more money next season at Dook than he will for the rest of his life.
The other one was AB, who put his name in, then wanted to come back, but the money and space were already gone. Tough conversation.
I’m a little unconvinced of some of that.
I read Robison like would’ve been able to come back. But he left. Greppi came over for a little money. Obviously that was gone, but they also just seemed done with him, which happened.
I’d be surprised if that was the case with AB. I think he (or his agent) wanted more money, and he probably got it. And considering he committed to SC before the Badgers added their new big, skeptical space was an issue.
-
I’m a little unconvinced of some of that.
I read Robison like would’ve been able to come back. But he left. Greppi came over for a little money. Obviously that was gone, but they also just seemed done with him, which happened.
I’d be surprised if that was the case with AB. I think he (or his agent) wanted more money, and he probably got it. And considering he committed to SC before the Badgers added their new big, skeptical space was an issue.
Money for that space was already gone.
Winter cost a lot of money - about double what they thought going in.
AB took less money from USCe than Wisconsin originally offered.
Oops.
-
Money for that space was already gone.
Winter cost a lot of money - about double what they thought going in.
AB took less money from USCe than Wisconsin originally offered.
Oops.
So we maybe lose Winter if AB returns?
Fine with how that went.
-
Losing Winter was never going to happen. He stayed for less than what the Bluebloods had on the table.
Blackwell said he was a Badger for life.
I think he meant Winter.
-
Losing Winter was never going to happen. He stayed for less than what the Bluebloods had on the table.
Blackwell said he was a Badger for life.
I think he meant Winter.
So UW would’ve payed AB more than SC, a school that is in no position to lowball anyone, and would’ve kept Winter at double what was expected?
At some point that math ain’t working, unless they planned to invest much less at wing.
Ultimately, it’s probably fine.
-
So UW would’ve payed AB more than SC, a school that is in no position to lowball anyone, and would’ve kept Winter at double what was expected?
At some point that math ain’t working, unless they planned to invest much less at wing.
Ultimately, it’s probably fine.
Going in, that's what UW wanted to do. Then some dominoes started to fall. Once they found out they were seriously in it for Onuetu and the Glue Guy, it was over for AB.
When AB was still in the cards they didn't know Onuetu would come as cheap as he did. They didn't think they could afford the glue guy, but AB leaving freed up that money.
I think it worked out well for the silent assassin - and I also think it's not over.
The pickin's will be cheap now, and they are anything but slim.
-
Of course, there was a lot of house-Creaning going on before the portal.
It's much easier for the coaches now. Tough conversations now go both ways.
(Be careful what you wish for - they wanted this.)
Of the four who left, there were two guys who really didn't want to transfer this year. They got the tough conversation.
One was Blackwell, who will make more money next season at Dook than he will for the rest of his life.
The other one was AB, who put his name in, then wanted to come back, but the money and space were already gone. Tough conversation.
Yeah, I think Gard and Painter are two coaches who are simply going to be brutally honest and tell a player what their prospects are.
The difference is that I'm not sure Purdue has *that* many players who are leaving because they're not getting paid enough, so they can keep the players they want. Whereas it sounds like Wisconsin is having trouble with that.
But I don't get mad at players who transfer out as a result of those tough conversations. If they don't have a realistic path to minutes, and playing time is their desire, I'd rather Painter tell them the truth and let them make their own choice.
-
Yeah, I think Gard and Painter are two coaches who are simply going to be brutally honest and tell a player what their prospects are.
The difference is that I'm not sure Purdue has *that* many players who are leaving because they're not getting paid enough, so they can keep the players they want. Whereas it sounds like Wisconsin is having trouble with that.
But I don't get mad at players who transfer out as a result of those tough conversations. If they don't have a realistic path to minutes, and playing time is their desire, I'd rather Painter tell them the truth and let them make their own choice.
It seems like that’s the humane way to push someone out these days. Or saying, “next year you aren’t worth what we paid you last year.”
The AB thing was what it was. Wanted more, UW balked. The Blackwell thing, a bit more complex. There’s more money to be had, but it seems like there was also some challenging dynamic with him hitting his ceiling (he really wanted to be off to the NBA this year, and that ain’t happening).
-
Blackwell wants to play the point.
Gard said no.
Scheyer lied yes.
Rinse and repeat.
-
The funny thing is that the NCAA fought against players unionizing, and now the players would be stupid to unionize
-
Blackwell wants to play the point.
Gard said no.
Scheyer lied yes.
Rinse and repeat.
I think some of that is cover and some of it is cope. Doesn’t seem like even if Gard said yes, that would change much, which is fine.
It’s a little funny that he was more of a “point” as a sophomore.
-
The funny thing is that the NCAA fought against players unionizing, and now the players would be stupid to unionize
It’s also a bit funny that some folks held on too long to the idea the players weren’t worth much. Played themselves.
-
I think some of that is cover and some of it is cope. Doesn’t seem like even if Gard said yes, that would change much, which is fine.
It’s a little funny that he was more of a “point” as a sophomore.
Let's face it. He wanted his bag and Dook gave it to him.
He did play point quite a bit in 24/25, but he wasn't great at it. He's such a tweener. Give him another 2" and he's a great SF.
-
The funny thing is that the NCAA fought against players unionizing, and now the players would be stupid to unionize
As is often the case, the players at the top would be stupid to unionize. There are a lot of guys in the middle and bottom who would do better in a union. Probably easier in basketball than in football, where there are just so many players at such dramatically different levels. BUT...the other issue is medical care and access to education: those are things that even the higher paid guys should want, and that only a union is likely to deliver in a meaningful way. On the other hand, if you're making 7 figures for a couple of years, maybe you just don't care. Especially at age 20.
A good agent would turn down a few extra dollars to get longer term (lifetime?) and better medical, particularly where a blown ACL could bring the whole house of cards down on a 20-year old's head. Maybe that's already happening?
-
As is often the case, the players at the top would be stupid to unionize. There are a lot of guys in the middle and bottom who would do better in a union. Probably easier in basketball than in football, where there are just so many players at such dramatically different levels. BUT...the other issue is medical care and access to education: those are things that even the higher paid guys should want, and that only a union is likely to deliver in a meaningful way. On the other hand, if you're making 7 figures for a couple of years, maybe you just don't care. Especially at age 20.
A good agent would turn down a few extra dollars to get longer term (lifetime?) and better medical, particularly where a blown ACL could bring the whole house of cards down on a 20-year old's head. Maybe that's already happening?
And they get it. Whether they take advantage of it is a different question. I don't see how players at the bottom would do better. They just wouldn't do worse
Now would non revenue athletes do better? Probably, but why would football and basketball players unionize with female divers
-
And they get it. Whether they take advantage of it is a different question. I don't see how players at the bottom would do better. They just wouldn't do worse
Now would non revenue athletes do better? Probably, but why would football and basketball players unionize with female divers
Ask an 18 y/o that question.
-
And they get it. Whether they take advantage of it is a different question. I don't see how players at the bottom would do better. They just wouldn't do worse
Now would non revenue athletes do better? Probably, but why would football and basketball players unionize with female divers
Unionization for college athletics is probably more complicated than yes union or no union. I don't think football and basketball players would unionize with female divers. I'm not sure that basketball players and football players would want to be part of the same collective bargaining agreement. And why would they have to be?
-
So, I’ve heard that as an American sporting event, the NCAA Tournament draws the second highest viewership (and betting) among “casual viewers” (meaning non-sports fans), behind only the Super Bowl.
There seem to be two major viewership draws to the Tournament: 1) A loaded Final Four – meaning matchups between the heavyweights: Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UCLA, North Carolina… AND 2) Upsets.
Pertaining to the 2nd, there are two kinds of upsets: 1) The always rare first round wins by seeds #13/14/15/16:
There were none in 2025 and again none in 2026.
I personally do not believe the very recent lack of upsets by #13/14/15/16 seeds has that much to do with the impact of the TP/NIL. We’re still only a few seasons removed from a #1 Purdue and #2 Arizona going down in Round One. Yes, it’s probably more difficult now, and I might be contradicting myself later in this post, but #13/14/15/16 seeds were already so far removed from realistically being able to win, that the way upsets play out, most often by little regard for the favored team’s massive talent advantage, that by definition, these upsets should still be happening the way they did before. I just think the last two seasons have been a sort of statistical reset, and that soon enough we’ll see more wins by a #15 or #14. FWIW, #3 Virginia looked prone for the upsetting by their #14 opponent this season.
What I think the TP/NIL era chokes off is the second kind of upset we’re used to – the later round upsets often strung together by midrange seeds that allow for a memorable run to the Final Four (or even Elite Eight): #11 George Mason 2006, #11 Butler 2011, #11 VCU 2011, #9 Wichita State 2013, #11 Loyola-Chicago 2018. Their path included major upsets – think a #8 Wisconsin beating #1 Villanova in 2017.
To think this through we must pick a working cutoff between the TP/NIL Haves and Have-nots. I am going to go with a cutoff of sixteen Haves on any given year. This means seeds #1/2/3/4 now have an increased advantage over the rest of the field thanks to the TP/NIL. This would make it that much more difficult for a #8/9 over #1, #7/#10 over #2, or #11 over #6/3 to occur.
In other words, the talent gap between the #1/2/3/4 meaningfully increased over seeds #6/7/8/9/10/11. (I’m treating #5 & #12 like wildcards.) IMO, this increase has more effect than the #1/2/3/4 increasing their talent over their given first round opponents (#13/14/15/16), because their talent advantage over their First Round opponents was and still is too great for a greater increase to be as applicable on court.
However, statistics from the past two tournaments don’t fully support my claim:
-There were no big 1st Round upsets in 2025 and again none in 2026
-#9 Iowa and #11 Texas reached the Elite Eight (2026)
Other points to consider (from 2026 Tournament):
-No mid-majors reached the Sweet 16
-An uncommonly high number of schools in the Sweet 16 also reached last season’s Sweet 16 (can’t remember exact number, but it supports the idea of the Haves sustaining their advantage)
-Three teams were built entirely through the TP: St. John’s, Texas and Michigan
TL; DR: TP/NIL Era increases the advantage for seeds #1/2/3/4, but the effect this has on upsets will be greater against #6/7/8/9/10/11 seeds than #13/14/15/16 seeds.
edit: Texas reached S16
-
2) Upsets.
Pertaining to the 2nd, there are two kinds of upsets: 1) The always rare first round wins by seeds #13/14/15/16:
I personally do not believe the very recent lack of upsets by #13/14/15/16 seeds has that much to do with the impact of the TP/NIL. We’re still only a few seasons removed from a #1 Purdue and #2 Arizona going down in Round One. Yes, it’s probably more difficult now, and I might be contradicting myself later in this post, but #13/14/15/16 seeds were already so far removed from realistically being able to win, that the way upsets play out, most often by little regard for the favored team’s massive talent advantage, that by definition, these upsets should still be happening the way they did before. I just think the last two seasons have been a sort of statistical reset, and that soon enough we’ll see more wins by a #15 or #14. FWIW, #3 Virginia looked prone for the upsetting by their #14 opponent this season.
Interesting posts and I agree with a lot of it but I disagree here.
I pointed out last year that there were no #13+ upsets but at that time I wasn't ready to jump to the conclusion that TP/NIL had fundamentally altered the status-quo because I felt that there wasn't enough data. Now with two years of ZERO upsets, I think there is enough data to at least say that *something* changed and the most obvious candidate for the cause is TP/NIL.
For reference, in the first 29 NCAATs after the 1985 expansion (1985-2024) the #13-16 seeds went 69-555 (.132). An average of 1.77 of them made it out of the first round each year in a range of 0-4. The prior instances of zero #13-16 seeds winning occurred in:
Thus, when there were zero in 2025 I suspected that TP/NIL were altering the landscape but I didn't feel that the data was sufficient to prove it because there had been zero #13-16 upsets five times in the past. Also, since the average per year was slightly under 2, when there were zero in 2025 that was only a difference of 1.77 from the average which *COULD* be explained by random chance. A funny bounce here or there covers that. Back-to-back years with no upsets is a different situation. That NEVER happened before and now (for the two years) there are 3.5 'missing' upsets. IMHO, that is statistically significant enough to be evidence that *SOMETHING* has changed.
Here is a chart of the rolling average number of #13-16 upsets:
(https://i.imgur.com/CYckD3i.png)
Three years ago the averages were all at all-time highs:
- 2.67 average per NCAAT: From 2021-2023 there were 8 #13-16 upsets. An all-time high for three NCAATs.
- 2.4 average per NCAAT: From 2018-2023 there were 12 #13-16 upsets. An all-time high for five NCAATs.
- 2.1 average per NCAAT: From 2013-2023 there were 21 #13-16 upsets. An all time high for 10 NCAATs.
- 2.0 average per NCAAT: From 2008-2023 there were 30 #13-16 upsets. An all time high for 15 NCAATs.
In the three years since all of those have cratered and they are now at or approaching all-time lows.
-
What I think the TP/NIL era chokes off is the second kind of upset we’re used to – the later round upsets often strung together by midrange seeds that allow for a memorable run to the Final Four (or even Elite Eight): #11 George Mason 2006, #11 Butler 2011, #11 VCU 2011, #9 Wichita State 2013, #11 Loyola-Chicago 2018. Their path included major upsets – think a #8 Wisconsin beating #1 Villanova in 2017.
To think this through we must pick a working cutoff between the TP/NIL Haves and Have-nots. I am going to go with a cutoff of sixteen Haves on any given year. This means seeds #1/2/3/4 now have an increased advantage over the rest of the field thanks to the TP/NIL. This would make it that much more difficult for a #8/9 over #1, #7/#10 over #2, or #11 over #6/3 to occur.
In other words, the talent gap between the #1/2/3/4 meaningfully increased over seeds #6/7/8/9/10/11. (I’m treating #5 & #12 like wildcards.) IMO, this increase has more effect than the #1/2/3/4 increasing their talent over their given first round opponents (#13/14/15/16), because their talent advantage over their First Round opponents was and still is too great for a greater increase to be as applicable on court.
However, statistics from the past two tournaments don’t fully support my claim:
-There were no big 1st Round upsets in 2025 and again none in 2026
-#9 Iowa and #11 Texas reached the Elite Eight (2026)
Other points to consider (from 2026 Tournament):
-No mid-majors reached the Sweet 16
-An uncommonly high number of schools in the Sweet 16 also reached last season’s Sweet 16 (can’t remember exact number, but it supports the idea of the Haves sustaining their advantage)
-Three teams were built entirely through the TP: St. John’s, Texas and Michigan
This is an interesting concept and I don't have enough organized data to test it but it wouldn't be all that hard to put it together. I'm thinking something like a tracking of the number of each seed in the E8. Then a rolling average over 3, 5, 10, and 15 years because a one-year outlier isn't proof of any change, outliers happen. However, if the number of say 5+ seeds to make the E8 is meaningfully dropping then that would back up your theory.
On the surface what you are saying makes sense to me. For the top teams the TP/NIL is an unmitigated good. They gain and don't lose. Think Dook grabbing the guy from Wisconsin or Michigan building a team entirely from the TP as you stated. I *THINK* that somewhere in the middle there are teams for whom the TP/NIL is basically a wash. They'll lose a few really high end guys to teams like Dook/M but they'll also fill in some gaps by grabbing guys from lower-level schools. Then there are the schools at the bottom for whom TP/NIL is an unmitigated bad. They lose and don't gain.
-
Things move fast. Only 71 people in the NBA draft, down from 363 five years ago. Cash is king.
Also, why I don't get too excited about making changes based on that. Eventually Congress or somebody will try to regulate the market.
-
Things move fast. Only 71 people in the NBA draft, down from 363 five years ago. Cash is king.
Also, why I don't get too excited about making changes based on that. Eventually Congress or somebody will try to regulate the market.
That number is, in part, good and in large part is just reflective of the more open transfer situation.
-
This leads to another interesting curiosity, which is, was the lookie-loo NBA draft era good?
Like, that number of people who tried out for the draft is super high. But in the end, a large majority of them came back. You had guys like Ethan Happ trying out basically for fun and the experience, and the college team just kind of had to wait on him.
The current system probably sets some equilibrium. There’s 60 spots, you don’t need that many trying out early.
-
This leads to another interesting curiosity, which is, was the lookie-loo NBA draft era good?
This is an interesting point because the, as you called it, "lookie-loo NBA draft era" puts teams in a bind.
Looking at my team (only because it is the one I know best), the Buckeyes brought in a slew of guards, I think probably more than they need. Here is the guard situation at Ohio State as of May 4:
- John Mobley: Testing the NBA draft but generally expected to return. He can run the point but he's a sharpshooter and seems to be a bigger contributor as a catch-and-shoot guy so they needed a PG.
- Justin Pippen: Product of our era. Played as a frosh at Michigan two years ago then started at Cal as a Soph last year and will be at his third school in three years this year with Ohio State. Probably tOSU's starting PG for the upcoming season.
- Jimmie Williams: Grew up in Ohio, played JUCO then a backup at USF then a starter at Duquesne last year.
- Braylen Nash is returning but doesn't seem likely to be a major contributor.
- Curtis Givens: Another third school in three years guy who was at LSU two yeas ago and Memphis last year. Apparently he was out a substantial portion of last year but led Memphis in MPG when he was playing and started 15 games.
I think the problem for Ohio State (applies across the board) is that with Mobley testing the NBA draft it creates a potential MAJOR problem if he suddenly shoots up NBA draft projections and leaves. As long as Mobley is back I would think that we could do without either Nash or Givens but if Mobley unexpectedly leaves then things change.
Could they maybe move the portal to post-draft?
As mentioned above, this applies across the board not just at Guard at Ohio State. Whenever you have a guy testing the NBA draft he is almost always expected to be at the least a major contributor so his loss would be a big deal.