Latest news with #MikeDeCourcy
New York Times
23-07-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
NCAA Tournament expansion debate: Hoops scribes Seth Davis, Mike DeCourcy have it out
The NCAA Tournament expansion debate is one-sided when it comes to fans and media. However, one prominent voice in particular supports the idea of increasing the number of teams from 68. The website X is largely useless when it comes to adding value to one's life, though when Seth Davis of Hoops HQ and CBS makes the case for expansion and gets into it with Mike DeCourcy of The Sporting News and Big Ten Network, it's fun again for a few fleeting moments. This has happened so often in the past few months, we thought it would be even more fun to get these two — representing nearly 80 years of combined college hoops coverage — together on a video call to argue out loud. Advertisement Like coaches The Athletic polled, this is an even split. And this went well beyond the allotted 30 minutes. Note: Conversation has been edited for clarity and length. Seth Davis Mike will agree with the fact that the tournament does not start on Thursday. The tournament starts on Tuesday. There are two games Tuesday night, two games Wednesday night, and people don't really care about them. And so my feeling is, if you had six games on Tuesday, you had six games on Wednesday, and then 16 on Thursday and Friday, I think that juices it up. Mike is shaking his head — more people are gonna watch, more people are gonna bet. Yes, they are, Mike. Those two days will be better. You can't get around that. And I don't think Mike's going to argue, 'Wow, the First Four is awesome.' And then the other thing is, just the fact that in this sport, they've added four teams (to the tournament) in 40 years, and that is not reflective of the growth of college basketball. I'm not talking about the number of teams in Division I, Mike, though that's one barometer. I'm talking the overall growth of college basketball has not grown by 6 percent in 40 years. Mike DeCourcy: I don't understand that point. The membership argument is specious. You're getting all these schools that really aren't Division I schools in any other sport, that want to get their shot at the NCAA Tournament pay day. And the athletic directors are like, 'If I can get my team into D-I, I can get this next job and I can climb.' Same thing for university presidents. And so that's why you've seen Division I grow from probably around 280 or so when I started (in 1987), and now we're at 363, I think. That's why it's grown. But you haven't added any Dukes. You haven't added any Carolinas. That's not what's happened. So from that standpoint, we don't need more teams to accommodate more championship contenders. So I don't understand what that means, that college basketball has grown. In terms of interest, certainly it's grown. But the reason it has grown is because the tournament works as well as it does, and it works because of 64. Advertisement Davis: No, no. You can't make the argument that it works because of 64. There's no factual, data-based argument. And by the way, Mike, there's not 64 teams, there's 68. DeCourcy: Let me finish my point, OK? The only reason 68 happened is because in 2010, it was, 'We go to 96 or we don't get enough money.' And then Turner comes in and says, 'We'll give you enough money,' and they settled on 68. It was a compromise. As a compromise, it was great, because it protected the integrity of 64. And why does 64 work? It works because of a sheet of paper. It works because it all fits on one sheet of paper. Davis: There's no way to make a bracket that's 76 teams on one sheet of paper, right? DeCourcy: No! First of all, you can't fill it out in time … Davis: That's the dumbest argument of all. DeCourcy: It's not a dumb argument! Davis: Dumbest argument of all. DeCourcy: 'Oh, I have to get my bracket done by Tuesday at noon so we can have 12 more games that no one will watch.' We have less than 2 million, on average, who watch the First Four games. And so what you'll have is 12 games where less than 2 million people will watch. And in the meantime, you have destroyed… Davis: The idea that you can't fill out a bracket by Tuesday at noon is a joke. An absolute joke. DeCourcy: I have to fill one out by Sunday night at 8 o'clock. But that's not the same as somebody who works in an office and doesn't pay that much attention to the sport. Davis: The idea that researching the bracket is going to improve your picks is totally farcical. If you tell people, 'You've got to have your bracket in by noon on Tuesday,' they'll get their bracket in by noon on Tuesday. Joe Rexrode: I will jump in real fast, Seth, and ask you, beyond the bracket, this is also an annual life ritual too, right? Where people take the days off, some get snip-snapped, whatever, but on Thursday and Friday, you can deal with that. Advertisement Davis: You're still going to have Thursday and Friday. Rexrode: Right, but you're asking people to devote all of Tuesday and Wednesday, too. Is that not asking too much? Davis: No, no! They can watch or not watch. If they don't want to watch, they don't have to watch. I kind of liken it to, we just had the British Open. How many were watching the British Open on Thursday or Friday? A lot more people were watching Saturday and then a lot more Sunday. … I'm not saying the ratings are going to be gangbusters, and in fact, they won't be that huge because otherwise they would have done it already. Mike recognizes that. Mike needs to answer, though, to the facts. He's not wrong about the growth of Division I, but that's only one barometer of the growth. The performance of the lower-seeded teams in the tournament, including those in the First Four, people would say originally, when we went to 68, 'Those teams don't belong in the tournament.' Guess what? Two of them have already made the Final Four (VCU in 2011, UCLA in 2021). So if we went to 76, what do you think the over/under would be of how many years it will take for one of the added slots to result in the Final Four? It wouldn't be that long. DeCourcy: All you're doing, by doing what you're suggesting, is you are diluting the tournament first of all. But more important — and this is the part I'm more passionate about because I've been in the thick of this now for six years during my work as the bracket analyst for Fox Sports. So I know as well as anybody outside that (selection committee) room what is on the other side of that line. I have to study it over the course of the last six weeks, in particular, so I know, my job is to (figure out) teams that are going to be on the right side of the line and the wrong side of the line. And first of all, what's on the right side of the line, at the very end of the line, is not impressive. But what's on the wrong side of the line is really hideous. I mean there's no way you make a championship better by putting more lesser teams in it. This last year, we had two teams make the field that had one Quad 1 win each. Two teams. We're to that point now. And now we need to add teams that have zero Quad 1 wins? How does that make the tournament better? That for me is the most important part of the argument. Davis: Well, first of all, in terms of the quality of teams getting in and the bubble teams, you used words like 'impressive, hideous, lesser.' Those are subjective words. Advertisement DeCourcy: It is a subjective process at the end there, Seth. Davis: What I'm saying is, everyone, including myself, argued against North Carolina being in the field. And then they beat San Diego State by a million points. DeCourcy: I never said they didn't win a game. I said they didn't earn a bid. Davis: Yeah, but again, we're talking about subjective criteria, right? The idea that over 40 years, the field has only grown by four spots is not commensurate with the quality of college basketball being played across the board. Now I know it's a little bit of an exception, but these teams that just got into Division I, do you know who just got into Division I and played their first season of Division I last year? UC-San Diego. They ended up as a 12 seed and almost knocked off Michigan in the first game. So all of these metrics, the performance of the lower-seeded teams, to me, justifies fixing the one thing that is most wrong with this tournament. And that is Tuesday and Wednesday. You cannot argue that having more games on Tuesday and Wednesday won't add more interest to those days. You just can't. DeCourcy: It will not. Davis: You cover college basketball for the Sporting News, right? So if there are six games on Tuesday and Wednesday, will you cover it? DeCourcy: Will there be articles on our site about them? Yes. There are articles on our site about the current four games that exist. And not that many people read them. Davis: If you're Joe Rexrode, if you're The Athletic, you're covering those games? Rexrode: Yeah, we'll have something. Davis: So someone is going to click on the story. DeCourcy: Someone. Not millions. Davis: I'm not saying, no one is saying millions. But I'm saying … it will make Tuesday and Wednesday better. And by the way, the NCAA Tournament is the greatest gambling sporting event that we have, because of the bracket pool. People love to bet the games. … This has been proven in other sports. It's been going on in college football right now. When you add slots to the postseason, it adds interest to the regular season. Because you have more teams that are able to get into the playoffs. Go back to Major League Baseball. It used to be four teams in the playoffs, am I right about that? Advertisement Rexrode: Yes, and I'd love to go back. Davis: When they started to add more teams, the wild card, more divisions, Bob Costas' head exploded, saying, 'You're diluting the regular season.' But they added interest in the regular season. Same with college football. DeCourcy: Don't use college football. They didn't have a postseason. So they went from nothing to having a postseason. Davis: Yeah, but there were a lot of people saying they shouldn't have a playoff because it would diminish the regular season. That was a huge argument. DeCourcy: It was a counterintuitive argument. We don't have time for that. Make your baseball argument. Davis: When you expand a playoff, you expand interest in the regular season because now if you're a fan of a team with a chance to get in, you're going to pay attention. DeCourcy: Baseball's regular season is not as popular as it used to be. Davis: That's not because of playoff expansion. DeCourcy: But you can't use that as an example if there's nothing there to verify. If there's no data to back you up, you can't use it. Davis: You gonna tell me that college football didn't get better with a playoff? DeCourcy: College football definitely got better with a playoff. It had none. Now it has one. We have one in the NCAA Tournament that is beloved, and that leads me to my next point. Have you ever done a Twitter poll or anything like that to gauge the popularity of (expansion)? Davis: I'm well aware of where public sentiment is on this. DeCourcy: Well, I mean, so why would you mess with a product that 90 percent of your public embraces? When (Rob) Dauster (of Field of 68) did his, it was 94 percent against. When I did mine, it was 91 percent against. If you can find a Twitter poll that says — and that's why I wish you had, because you are one of the few advocating for this — if you can find a poll that says 90 percent in favor of it, I'll shut up. Please answer: Do you want NCAA Tournament expansion? — Rob Dauster (@RobDauster) July 9, 2025 Davis: I know exactly where public sentiment is, and that's a very valid argument against. I think there's something to be said, given what I think is the incredible growth of the game over the last 40 years. … I think there's a case to be made that more schools, more players, more coaches, more families should have access to the tournament. Advertisement DeCourcy: Every team has access to the tournament, Seth. Davis: OK, let's go back to 48 then. That would really add value. DeCourcy: There's nothing wrong with 64. Davis: You're saying there's nothing wrong with 64, you disagree with Dave Gavitt, who in 1985 made a very, very strong argument against going to 64. DeCourcy: And he lost, and then he embraced it. Davis: Right, and you're going to embrace going to 76. Mike's gonna go, 'Seth, you were right again, I shouldn't have doubted you.' How about in 1975 when they went from only conference champs to at-large bids? John Wooden and a lot of people were against it for all of the reasons you're saying right now. DeCourcy: No. None of the reasons I'm saying right now. Davis: It's parroting exactly what you're saying. DeCourcy: At that point in time — here's where I have the advantage over Seth, Joe — I was there. I was a basketball-loving teenager in 1975. Seth was not. Davis: I did a little bit of research about that time (referencing his books 'Wooden: A Coach's Life' and 'When March Went Mad' on the 1979 Michigan State-Indiana State title game). There was a lot of opposition, people saying exactly what you're saying. DeCourcy: But those games weren't even on TV. At that point, if you tried to watch the Sweet 16 on TV, you basically had to be living in that market. Davis: You're saying adding more teams made it a better product, and they had to get it on TV and make more money. DeCourcy: No, ESPN came along and they needed more games on TV because they were a 24-hour sports station, so they started to put it on TV and people started to watch. And it changed everything. … When John Wooden was talking, the tournament wasn't popular. The championship game was pretty popular. The tournament wasn't. Davis: Expanding the tournament made it more popular. Say it, Mike. Say the words. Say the words. Expanding the tournament made it more popular. Advertisement DeCourcy: And you reached a perfect chemistry at 64 in 1985. Davis: Perfect as determined by, 40 years ago it was perfect. DeCourcy: It still is. It still is because the public continues to embrace it. Davis: It's not at 64. Rexrode: Right, but everyone complains about this little extra part we have to start with. DeCourcy: When I ask about this, I get more people saying we should go back to 64 than anyone saying we should expand. Davis: And I should be 6-foot-8 and be able to dunk, OK? So everyone who says, 'We need to go back to 64,' should leave the chat. Stop talking about 64 being perfect. If you're going to tell me that 64 is the perfect number, then what you're saying is the tournament is not perfect. It's not at 64. It's 68. We have Tuesday and Wednesday that nobody cares about, and this is a way to juice that up. DeCourcy: It doesn't juice it up. It dilutes it. It doesn't add more 100 percent orange juice; it just throws another cup of water into an already diluted cocktail. Rexrode: On that point, Mike, do you believe that if this happens, we go to 72 or 76, that there will be a detrimental long-term effect to the popularity of the tournament? DeCourcy: I absolutely 100 percent believe that. Not just the popularity of the tournament, but the popularity of the sport on the whole. I think what you'll see in the regular season, the interest in the regular season will be diminished because — and I know this is rhetoric — everyone who can bounce a ball three times without bouncing it off their foot will get in the tournament. I think it would diminish the interest of the tournament in terms of the people saying, 'That's just too many teams, too much complication on the bracket, we can't get it on the one sheet anymore, the heck with it, I'm out.' I have very little doubt about that. How many millions of people that means, I don't know. But over time I think it would trickle off and you'd just have the hardcores. Advertisement Davis: I think people are very resistant to change. And I think that's really, to me, the lesson in this. Mike keeps saying, '64 is perfect, 64 is perfect.' I think people will get used to the idea of a few more teams in there. I think it will add interest in the regular season because more teams, more fan bases would have a chance to have their team in the field. I think you would have a great chance to have at least one or two more mid-major teams get at-large bids, which is why there's almost unanimous consent within mid-major commissioners, and I've talked to many of them. They all want this. Clearly, most of (the bids) would go to the power conferences, we know that. … No one is making a better or more cogent, fact-based argument against this than Mike DeCourcy. It's the same argument made by really smart people for many decades across many sports. And I believe history shows that most of the time, they've been wrong. Rexrode: Closing arguments? DeCourcy: When you come down to it, there is no clear reason to expand. You have an incredibly popular product that is artistically successful and economically successful. You've got something that the target audience, your fans, are embracing and have embraced for decades. There's been no public demand for a larger tournament. There's no economic demand for a larger tournament. The networks are saying, 'We don't want to pay for it.' And it's only being pursued because conference commissioners are looking out for what's best for them. Not about what's best for the health of the sport. Not even really about what's best for their partners in (TV). All of that adds up to a poor idea that hopefully, by the time we get to a decision, will have been sent back to the closet it belongs in. Davis: First of all, Mike is very right about the economics of this. Which is why all those people out there saying they're only doing it for the money need to leave the chat and join all the people who are saying we need to go back to 64. This is about access to the tournament. I do agree with Mike, there is no mass call for this, there is certainly no uprising. I would hope Mike would agree with me and separate himself from some of his colleagues who say, 'If they did make this move, it would be the end of times.' Ruinous. You will not ruin March Madness. It will marginally change it. It will make Tuesday and Wednesday a little bit better. It will give more players, coaches, teams, fan bases and families a chance to enjoy and participate in the greatest sporting event, in my opinion, in the world. I think it will make things marginally better. Rexrode: Mike wins, not just because he's right but because he used the word 'specious.'
USA Today
08-04-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
Sporting News lists MSU as one of early National Championship favorites for next season
Sporting News lists MSU as one of early National Championship favorites for next season It's super early, but Sporting News considers Michigan State as a National Championship contender next season Longtime college basketball analyst and reporter Mike DeCourcy has Michigan State as a national championship contender next season. Sporting News released their way-too-early top 25 rankings for next season on Monday, and DeCourcy has the Spartans as a top five team as we look ahead to the 2025-26 campaign. DeCourcy listed Michigan State at No. 5 in his early rankings for next year. DeCourcy has only the following teams ahead of the Spartans in his rankings: Duke (No. 1), Arkansas (No. 2), Houston (No. 3) and Florida (No. 4). From the Big Ten, DeCourcy included the following teams behind Michigan State: Purdue (No. 6), Michigan (No. 11), UCLA (No. 14) and Oregon (No. 22). Here's a bit of what DeCourcy had to say about the Spartans: "One of the benefits of such a deep rotation this past season is the Spartans still have a solid core group following a few transfer subtractions. Reserve point guard Tre Holloman would have been a great player to have around another year, but he also might have remained a backup if he'd stuck... The frontcourt is solid, at the very least. This obviously sounds incongruous, but it would help MSU for Tom Izzo to consider adding one serious impact transfer, preferably someone who can operate at a high level on the perimeter." Michigan State appears destined to return at least four guys with starting and key minutes experience in point guard Jeremy Fears Jr., forward Coen Carr, forward Jaxon Kohler and center Carson Cooper. Jase Richardson continues to be the true game-changer for the Spartans because if he returns, you could argue Michigan State should be even higher on this list. But if he leaves, I'd personally drop the Spartans a bit. It'll be interesting over the next few days to see where other college basketball analysts have the Spartans in their super early rankings. This may be the high-point for Michigan State, but it also could be the norm. We will see soon. Contact/Follow us @The SpartansWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Michigan State news, notes and opinion. You can also follow Robert Bondy on X @RobertBondy5.
Fox News
17-03-2025
- Sport
- Fox News
2025 Men's March Madness odds: Who is favored to make the Final Four?
Before the NCAA men's basketball tournament comes down to one team, it comes down to four. The tournament will begin on March 18, with the Final Four set to begin on April 5. Needless to say, bettors are looking ahead to see which teams will survive all the way to the semifinals. Check out the men's Final Four odds at DraftKings Sportsbook as of March 12. Teams to reach the 2025 Men's Final Four Duke: -150 (bet $10 to win $16.67 total)Auburn: -140 (bet $10 to win $17.14 total)Florida: +140 (bet $10 to win $24 total)Houston: +150 (bet $10 to win $25 total)Alabama: +220 (bet $10 to win $32 total)Tennessee: +300 (bet $10 to win $40 total)Iowa State: +400 (bet $10 to win $50 total)Saint Johns: +400 (bet $10 to win $50 total)Michigan State: +400 (bet $10 to win $50 total)Texas Tech: +600 (bet $10 to win $70 total)Kentucky: +800 (bet $10 to win $90 total)Maryland: +900 (bet $10 to win $100 total)Wisconsin: +900 (bet $10 to win $100 total)Texas A&M: +1000 (bet $10 to win $110 total)Arizona: +1200 (bet $10 to win $130 total)Kansas: +1200 (bet $10 to win $130 total)Gonzaga: +1300 (bet $10 to win $140 total) As of March 12, the four favorites to make the Final Four are No. 1 Duke, No. 3 Auburn, No. 4 Florida and No. 2 Houston, followed by No. 5 Alabama and No. 8 Tennessee, all with odds at +300 or shorter. This past week, Duke received 52 first-place votes in the Associated Press Top 25, after Auburn closed the regular season with back-to-back losses and dropped to No. 3. With that, Duke, as of March 12, is the favorite to win the national title, at +340. The last two Final Fours have been unique in nature in that all four teams haven't been considered basketball powerhouses. In 2024, it was UConn, Purdue, Alabama and NC State. In 2023, it was UConn, San Diego State, Miami and Florida Atlantic. In both of those seasons, UConn emerged as the champion, and the Huskies will try to make it three in a row this year. Currently, UConn is unranked. Its odds to make the Final Four are at +1900. In Mike DeCourcy's latest NCAA bracket projections, he has Auburn, Duke, Houston and Florida as the four No. 1 seeds. Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, and follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily!
Fox Sports
17-03-2025
- Sport
- Fox Sports
2025 Men's March Madness odds: Who is favored to make the Final Four?
Before the NCAA men's basketball tournament comes down to one team, it comes down to four. The tournament will begin on March 18, with the Final Four set to begin on April 5. Needless to say, bettors are looking ahead to see which teams will survive all the way to the semifinals. Check out the men's Final Four odds at DraftKings Sportsbook as of March 12. Teams to reach the 2025 Men's Final Four Duke: -150 (bet $10 to win $16.67 total) Auburn: -140 (bet $10 to win $17.14 total) Florida: +140 (bet $10 to win $24 total) Houston: +150 (bet $10 to win $25 total) Alabama: +220 (bet $10 to win $32 total) Tennessee: +300 (bet $10 to win $40 total) Iowa State: +400 (bet $10 to win $50 total) Saint Johns: +400 (bet $10 to win $50 total) Michigan State: +400 (bet $10 to win $50 total) Texas Tech: +600 (bet $10 to win $70 total) Kentucky: +800 (bet $10 to win $90 total) Maryland: +900 (bet $10 to win $100 total) Wisconsin: +900 (bet $10 to win $100 total) Texas A&M: +1000 (bet $10 to win $110 total) Arizona: +1200 (bet $10 to win $130 total) Kansas: +1200 (bet $10 to win $130 total) Gonzaga: +1300 (bet $10 to win $140 total) As of March 12, the four favorites to make the Final Four are No. 1 Duke, No. 3 Auburn, No. 4 Florida and No. 2 Houston, followed by No. 5 Alabama and No. 8 Tennessee, all with odds at +300 or shorter. This past week, Duke received 52 first-place votes in the Associated Press Top 25, after Auburn closed the regular season with back-to-back losses and dropped to No. 3. With that, Duke, as of March 12, is the favorite to win the national title, at +340. The last two Final Fours have been unique in nature in that all four teams haven't been considered basketball powerhouses. In 2024, it was UConn, Purdue, Alabama and NC State. In 2023, it was UConn, San Diego State, Miami and Florida Atlantic. In both of those seasons, UConn emerged as the champion, and the Huskies will try to make it three in a row this year. Currently, UConn is unranked. Its odds to make the Final Four are at +1900. In Mike DeCourcy's latest NCAA bracket projections, he has Auburn, Duke, Houston and Florida as the four No. 1 seeds. Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, and follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily! recommended Get more from College Basketball Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
Fox News
15-03-2025
- Sport
- Fox News
Bubble Watch: Where things stand with 12 NCAA Tournament hopefuls
With Selection Sunday just around the corner, teams will soon learn their NCAA Tournament fate. Have they built a compelling enough case for an at-large bid? Will they need to bolster their résumé with conference tournament wins? Or do they need an automatic bid to qualify for the Big Dance? All will be decided soon enough. Heading into Friday, FOX Sports bracket forecaster Mike DeCourcy had San Diego State, Indiana, North Carolina and Texas as his last four teams to get into the tournament, while Xavier, Ohio State, Boise State and UC Irvine were DeCourcy's first four teams out. Dayton, Colorado State, George Mason and San Francisco were listed as DeCourcy's next four teams out of the NCAA Tournament. Here's how things stand with those 12 bubble teams as of Friday evening. Record: 21-9Conference Tournament result: Lost to Boise State (62-52) What it means: San Diego State is at the committee's mercy. The Aztecs and Broncos were each fighting to get off the bubble, and there's probably one spot between the two teams. The Aztecs have to hope their two regular-season wins over Boise State are more valuable than Thursday's Mountain West Tournament loss. The Aztecs also have more quality wins than the Broncos, including a 73-70 victory over No. 3 Houston on Nov. 30. If the Aztecs had beaten the Broncos, they probably would have clinched a trip to March Madness, so this result makes the committee's decision difficult. Record: 19-13Conference Tournament result: Lost to No. 23 Oregon (72-59) What it means: Indiana will be sweating it out on Selection Sunday. It could go either way for the Hoosiers, who could have potentially sewn up a spot in the tourney with a win or two in the conference tournament. Instead, they will have to wait to see how a few other bubble teams fare. Record: 21-11Conference Tournament result: Lost to No. 25 Marquette (89-87) What it means: The Musketeers had ripped off seven wins heading into the Big East Tournament, albeit none of them were Quad 1 victories. A two-point loss to a tournament-caliber team in Marquette shouldn't hurt the Musketeers much, but a win would have stamped their trip to the Big Dance. Instead, it will be a close call for Sean Miller's team on Selection Sunday. Record: 22-13Conference Tournament results: Beat Notre Dame (76-56) and Wake Forest (68-59); Lost to No. 1 Duke (74-71) What it means: UNC had a chance to strengthen its NCAA Tournament résumé against a Duke team that was without star Cooper Flagg. The Tar Heels, though, couldn't get the best of the Blue Devils in their third crack at them this season. While a win on Friday wouldn't have guaranteed a trip to the Big Dance, it would have sent UNC to the ACC Tournament title with a chance to earn an automatic bid. Instead, the Tar Heels will have to hope their wins over Wake Forest and Notre Dame earlier this week will be enough to earn an at-large bid. Record: 19-15Conference Tournament results: Beat Vanderbilt (79-72) and No. 14 Texas A&M (94-89, 2OT); Lost to No. 8 Tennessee (83-72) What it means: Texas helped its NCAA Tournament case with hard-fought wins over Vanderbilt and Texas A&M in the SEC Tournament. However, the Longhorns stumbled against Tennessee on Friday and now will have to rely on the committee to reward them with an at-large bid. Their deep run in the SEC Tournament might give them the nod over fellow bubble teams in their conference that didn't fare as well this past week, such as Oklahoma, Georgia and Vanderbilt. Record: 17-15Conference Tournament result: Lost to Iowa (77-70) What it means: The Buckeyes, who lost five of their final seven games, have a win this season over one of their fellow bubble teams (Texas). Is that, along with key victories over Purdue and Kentucky, enough for them to sneak into the tournament? Probably not. Record: 28-5Conference Tournament result: Beat Cal Poly (96-78) What it means: The Anteaters have constructed a sturdy case for an at-large bid. Unfortunately for them, their Big West rival, UC San Diego, might have a more convincing one. The two teams will meet in the Big West Championship Game on Saturday night with an automatic bid to the Big Dance on the line. Record: 22-9Conference Tournament result: Lost to Saint Joseph's (73-68) What it means: Dayton's hopes of an NCAA Tournament bid presumably came to an end on Friday following a 73-68 loss to Saint Joseph's in an A-10 quarterfinal matchup. The Flyers finished third in a mid-major conference behind VCU and George Mason. Record: 24-9Conference Tournament results: Beat San Diego State (62-52); Beat New Mexico (72-69) What it means: The Broncos' win over the Aztecs heavily boosted their case for a spot in the Big Dance as both teams are on the bubble. Boise State had won five of its last six coming into the Mountain West Tournament. The win over the Mountain West regular-season champions, New Mexico, should help the Broncos, but if they want to ensure a spot in March Madness, they'll probably have to win the conference tournament. Record: 24-9Conference Tournament results: Beat Nevada (67-59); Beat Utah State (83-72) What it means: Winners of their final seven regular-season games, the Rams are one of the hottest teams in the nation. They put themselves in a hole earlier this season when they lost consecutive games to UC Riverside and Washington, and haven't had a ton of opportunities to dig themselves out as they've played just six Quad 1 opponents and are 1-5 in those games. Colorado State will take on Boise State in Saturday's Mountain West Championship Game for a spot in the NCAA Tournament. Record: 25-7Conference Tournament result: Beat George Washington (80-65) What it means: The Patriots' record might seem impressive, but their résumé is not. Any slip-up in the A-10 Tournament will likely take them out of contention for the NCAA Tournament. They kept their hopes alive with a dominant performance against George Washington and will have to continue to string together victories to earn an auto- bid. Record: 24-9Conference Tournament result: Lost to Gonzaga (85-76) What it means: The Dons fell to Gonzaga in the WCC semifinals last weekend and finished conference play with a 13-5 mark. They own wins over Boise State and Saint Mary's, but their loss to the Bulldogs in the conference tournament marked their third defeat to them this season. Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, and follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily!
