College Basketball 2026-27 Season Thread

dukeman92 said:
While more basketball is rarely a bad thing, this move effectively kills the bubble drama as we know it.

We're trading the high stakes anxiety of Selection Sunday for the safety net of participation trophies.

This move is about one thing and one thing only. Money. It doesn’t make the tournament better to include a bunch of 16-15 P5 teams.
Click to expand...
It doesn't kill bubble drama. It just moves it one rung down the ladder. You'll still get the same drama.
 
dukeman92 said:
While more basketball is rarely a bad thing, this move effectively kills the bubble drama as we know it.

We're trading the high stakes anxiety of Selection Sunday for the safety net of participation trophies.

This move is about one thing and one thing only. Money. It doesn’t make the tournament better to include a bunch of 16-15 P5 teams.
Click to expand...
Everything is About money, that's why my job sucks donkey dicks.
 
BillOfRights said:
There are currently over five thousand six hundred regular season games. I don't see how adding four tournament games impacts the regular season in any significant way.
Click to expand...
It just makes it that much easier to get in the tournament, which further reduces the importance of any individual regular season game.

For example, in 2022, we had to beat Syracuse in OT at home to put us in a good position to make the tournament. Lose that game and we’d have to beat K in his last game to get into the tourney (which we fortunately did anyway). If the tournament were 76 teams, that Syracuse game would be largely meaningless.
 
BillOfRights said:
It doesn't kill bubble drama. It just moves it one rung down the ladder. You'll still get the same drama.
Click to expand...

It kills bubble drama as we know it.

Very important caveat on the end of that sentence. Yes, there will still be a bubble and plenty of discussion for which 16-15 team gets a participation trophy, but it will hardly be as suspenseful or exciting.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I haven’t yet read the details m, but I guess this means we will have a first round of 24 teams playing 12 games to be the 53rd-64th teams to go on to play on either Thursday or Friday.
Click to expand...
That would be sensible
But to get viewers these borderline schools will be matched up with 12 seeds etc first round
That is what the "play in games" are today
 
Heelsandeers said:
The next 8 teams are going to be pretty bad

What teams would’ve been on that 76 team bubble last season?
Click to expand...
When the tournament was expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there were 306 division 1 men's basketball teams. 21% of teams made the tournament. This past season, there were 365 men men's basketball teams. With a 78 team tournament, 21% of teams will get in next year.

The 68th best team is not significantly different from the 64th best team. The 78th best team is not significantly different from the 68th best team.
 
Here's an expansion I'd support.

The top 32 get seeded into the first round as usual. That's seeds 1-8 in each regional.

The bottom 16, most of whom are small conference tournament winners, also get seeded into the first round as usual. That's seeds 13-16 in each regional.

Seeds 9-12 are decided through an expanded play-in. That would be 32 teams playing for 16 spots in the first round. Most of them would be marginal, but evenly matched, P5 or G5 teams, so the games should be competitive and the loser has nothing to complain about.

That would be an 80 team tournament, which should make the university presidents even happier, and it would maintain what we all love best about the tournament.
 
lawtig02 said:
Here's an expansion I'd support.

The top 32 get seeded into the first round as usual. That's seeds 1-8 in each regional.

The bottom 16, most of whom are small conference tournament winners, also get seeded into the first round as usual. That's seeds 13-16 in each regional.

Seeds 9-12 are decided through an expanded play-in. That would be 32 teams playing for 16 spots in the first round. Most of them would be marginal, but evenly matched, P5 or G5 teams, so the games should be competitive and the loser has nothing to complain about.

That would be an 80 team tournament, which should make the university presidents even happier, and it would maintain what we all love best about the tournament.
Click to expand...

I could get behind this if we did away with conference tournaments.
 
Heelsandeers said:
The next 8 teams are going to be pretty bad

What teams would’ve been on that 76 team bubble last season?
Click to expand...
🏀 Top NET Teams Left Out (2025–26 Season)


1. Auburn Tigers men’s basketball — NET: 39


  • Highest NET to miss the field
  • Record (17–16) ultimately killed them despite strong schedule

2. Oklahoma Sooners men’s basketball — NET: ~38


  • One of the “last four out” per committee
  • Metrics strong enough to be safely in most years

3. Indiana Hoosiers men’s basketball — NET: ~41


  • Major late-season collapse (lost multiple straight)
  • Still top-45 NET but left out

4. San Diego State Aztecs men’s basketball — NET: 47


  • Strong Mountain West team
  • Resume just short on Q1 wins




5. New Mexico Lobos men’s basketball — NET: ~50 range


  • Mentioned consistently among final snubs
  • Weak Q1 resume hurt badly

6. Seton Hall Pirates men’s basketball — NET: ~50s


  • Solid record (21–12) but weak Big East opportunities

7. Wake Forest Demon Deacons men’s basketball — NET: ~50–60


  • Top seed in NIT field → clear bubble miss
  • Good team, résumé just short

8. Indiana Hoosiers men’s basketball (context confirmation)


  • Listed at NET 41 among non-NCAA Big Ten teams
 
Bigs23 said:
🏀 Top NET Teams Left Out (2025–26 Season)


1. Auburn Tigers men’s basketball — NET: 39


  • Highest NET to miss the field
  • Record (17–16) ultimately killed them despite strong schedule

2. Oklahoma Sooners men’s basketball — NET: ~38


  • One of the “last four out” per committee
  • Metrics strong enough to be safely in most years

3. Indiana Hoosiers men’s basketball — NET: ~41


  • Major late-season collapse (lost multiple straight)
  • Still top-45 NET but left out

4. San Diego State Aztecs men’s basketball — NET: 47


  • Strong Mountain West team
  • Resume just short on Q1 wins




5. New Mexico Lobos men’s basketball — NET: ~50 range


  • Mentioned consistently among final snubs
  • Weak Q1 resume hurt badly

6. Seton Hall Pirates men’s basketball — NET: ~50s


  • Solid record (21–12) but weak Big East opportunities

7. Wake Forest Demon Deacons men’s basketball — NET: ~50–60


  • Top seed in NIT field → clear bubble miss
  • Good team, résumé just short

8. Indiana Hoosiers men’s basketball (context confirmation)


  • Listed at NET 41 among non-NCAA Big Ten teams
Click to expand...
I don't think it ruins the tournament, but none of those teams bring anything worthwhile to it either. It just waters down the criteria a little bit more, making the regular season slightly less meaningful.
 
lawtig02 said:
Here's an expansion I'd support.

The top 32 get seeded into the first round as usual. That's seeds 1-8 in each regional.

The bottom 16, most of whom are small conference tournament winners, also get seeded into the first round as usual. That's seeds 13-16 in each regional.

Seeds 9-12 are decided through an expanded play-in. That would be 32 teams playing for 16 spots in the first round. Most of them would be marginal, but evenly matched, P5 or G5 teams, so the games should be competitive and the loser has nothing to complain about.

That would be an 80 team tournament, which should make the university presidents even happier, and it would maintain what we all love best about the tournament.
Click to expand...
I would much rather the bottom have to fight it out. That'll make the real round of 64 games more intense, as it is less likely that the conference winners of smaller conferences are going to make it past the opening round. I feel like the 9-12 seeds get f'ed in this circumstance. It'd be better to be a 13th seed, and not have to play in the opening round then be a 12th seed and have to win against the 9th before going on to play a fifth seed.
 
sringwal said:
I would much rather the bottom have to fight it out. That'll make the real round of 64 games more intense, as it is less likely that the conference winners of smaller conferences are going to make it past the opening round. I feel like the 9-12 seeds get f'ed in this circumstance. It'd be better to be a 13th seed, and not have to play in the opening round then be a 12th seed and have to win against the 9th before going on to play a fifth seed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear you, but I couldn't care less if the 9-12 seeds get fucked. I enjoy watching the little guys the first two days, especially if they're able to keep it close, which one or two of them always do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top