All of the bubble teams will be watching the Atlantic 10 Championship Game with great interest. Dayton upset Saint Louis in the semifinals and is playing VCU in the final. If Dayton wins, they steal a bid. Although, it might be VCU's bid they steal, so the A-10 Championship Game could very well be an NCAA Tournament play-in. Still, you'd have to think teams like Miami (OH), SMU and all those SEC teams will be rooting pretty hard for VCU just in case.
Last year, basically the entire SEC made it. They set a record with 14 teams, including two 1-seeds, who ended up meeting each other in the Final Four, with Florida winning the championship. Florida tried to play itself out of a 1-seed this year, but so did UConn. That blowout loss to St. John's in the Big East Championship Game I think sealed it. Despite its loss to Vanderbilt, Florida will be the fourth No. 1 seed.
The other three No. 1 seeds are incredibly easy calls. Duke will be No. 1 overall. Arizona and Michigan will be No. 2 and 3 overall. The order doesn't really matter since they'd be matched up against each other in the Final Four anyway. The only difference is who wears their home jerseys should they both get there. Since Arizona beat a very good Houston team for the Big 12 title, they get the nod as the higher overall seed.
Three of the 2-seeds are easy, as well. Houston and UConn both had the chance to be No. 1's. They didn't quite get there, so that keeps them on the 2-line. Iowa State wasn't moving off the 2-line. As for the fourth 2-seed, my choice might surprise you a bit. I think if Vanderbilt wins the SEC Championship Game, they get it. There has to be some sort of reward for winning the conference tournament. Likewise, I think winning the Big East moves St. John's from a 4-seed to a 3-seed.
As for one of the other 3-seeds, Nebraska is the only Power 4 school that has never won an NCAA Tournament game. That could very well change this year. In fact, I'd be surprised if it doesn't. It's not even a stretch to say the Huskers could reach the Sweet 16. They're one of many Big Ten teams that could. Not only will the Big Ten place the most teams in the field, they're all quality teams. Six of them should get a 5-seed or higher.
Now, about that pesky bubble. The conversation has been around whether Miami (OH) deserves an at-large bid after falling in the quarterfinals of the MAC Tournament. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in the First Four simply because of how the bubble is shaking out. I do think they're in the Tournament, though. As I said the other day, it sets a terrible precedent and sends a terrible message if they aren't. I've actually got them in the last at-large spot before the First Four, in fact.
Whether Miami (OH) gets in as they should or not, this is looking to be a pretty good year for mid-majors. Saint Louis is a lock, and the West Coast Conference should get both Saint Mary's and Santa Clara. Miami (OH) would make four at-large bids from conferences outside the Power 4 and Big East (which only gets at-large bids for UConn and Villanova). That's still not a lot compared to years past. But I don't think we're ever going back to that, so four is pretty good.
Part of the reason for that is the SEC won't be getting an absurd number of teams this year. I've "only" got them with 10, and that includes Missouri and Texas playing in the First Four. That's only one more than number of teams I have from the Big Ten. The ACC and Big 12, meanwhile, have eight each. Then, counting up all the other at-large bids, it's the Big East and West Coast Conference with three, then the Atlantic 10 and MAC with two apiece.
That conference breakdown and where certain teams slot actually created a whole bunch of difficulty filling out the bracket. As a result, I ended up flipping Akron from a 12-seed to an 11 and pushing one of the First Four games into that 12-seed slot. It was the only way to keep Missouri, Texas and their opponents away from conference teams. (I know they're allowed to have conference teams potentially play each other on the first weekend now, but I still don't like it and try to avoid it on my bracket if possible.)
EAST (Washington)
Greenville: 1-Duke (1) vs. 16-UMBC, 8-TCU vs. 9-Iowa
Tampa: 5-Wisconsin vs. 12-High Point, 4-Alabama vs. 13-Hofstra
Buffalo: 6-Tennessee vs. 11-South Florida, 3-Michigan State vs. 14-Wright State
St. Louis: 7-Kentucky vs. 10-NC State, 2-Iowa State vs. 15-Queens
SOUTH (Houston)
Tampa: 1-Florida (4) vs. 16-Lehigh/Prairie View, 8-Ohio State vs. 9-Utah State
San Diego: 5-Texas Tech vs. 12-Missouri/SMU, 4-Illinois vs. 13-Northern Iowa
Greenville: 6-BYU vs. 11-VCU, 3-Virginia vs. 14-Tennessee State
Philadelphia: 7-Saint Mary's vs. 10-Texas A&M, 2-Connecticut vs. 15-Siena
WEST (San Jose)
San Diego: 1-Arizona (2) vs. 16-Idaho, 8-Saint Louis vs. 9-Villanova
Portland: 5-Purdue vs. 12-McNeese State, 4-Gonzaga vs. 13-North Dakota State
Oklahoma City: 6-Louisville vs. 11-Central Florida/Texas, 3-Nebraska vs. 14-Hawai'i
St. Louis: 7-Miami vs. 10-Miami (OH), 2-Vanderbilt vs. 15-Furman
MIDWEST (Chicago)
Buffalo: 1-Michigan (3) vs. 16-Long Island/Howard, 8-Clemson vs. 9-Georgia
Portland: 5-Arkansas vs. 12-Yale, 4-Kansas vs. 13-Utah Valley
Philadelphia: 6-North Carolina vs. 11-Akron, 3-St. John's vs. 14-Troy
Oklahoma City: 7-UCLA vs. 10-Santa Clara, 2-Houston vs. 15-Kennesaw State
In the Final Four, it'll be East vs. South and West vs. Midwest. Will we see a repeat and have all four No. 1 seeds make it to Indianapolis? Don't count on it. It would be just the third time ever. And I have a feeling this year's NCAA Tournament will be wide open. After all, they call it March Madness for a reason.
Sunday, March 15, 2026
Joe Men's Bracket, 2026
Saturday, March 14, 2026
Joe Women's Bracket, 2026
As we head into Selection Sunday, it's a familiar tune for the women's tournament. Defending champion UConn is undefeated and the clear No. 1 overall seed. Does that mean the Huskies are unbeatable, though? Absolutely not. They're the favorites, and they should be, but the other three No. 1 seeds are all very capable. In fact, I think the talent at the top of the women's game might be better than it's ever been.
That talent at the top is reflected in just how many Power 4 teams figure to make the field. There aren't many at-large bids to be had from outside the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC. In fact, Villanova is the only team from another conference that's a lock. I do think Richmond will also get a bid, but as one of the last teams in and destined for the First Four. So, that's 35 of 37 at-large bids going to the same four leagues. The basketball is just that good in those conferences!
The strongest of those? The Big Ten. UCLA is the clear No. 2 overall team and a very legitimate threat for the title. They made their first Final Four last season, and there's no reason to think they won't get back. I've got UCLA leading 11 Big Ten teams into the field.
Texas and South Carolina met in the SEC Championship Game, with the Longhorns getting the win. They were both headed to No. 1 seeds either way, but that victory flipped their overall rankings. It made Texas No. 3 overall, which means UCLA in the Final Four instead of UConn. It also means that instead of traveling to Sacramento, Texas gets the Regional in Fort Worth. That's obviously a huge advantage for them.
In Fort Worth, they'll join UConn, which sends South Carolina out west with UCLA. That's because the NCAA is still doing that ridiculous two Regional format they've been using for the past several years. I have no idea why they think this format is better. It's not. It also makes for incredibly stupid-sounding Regional names of "Fort Worth 1" and "Sacramento 2," etc.
Because there are only two Regional sites, UConn has to hit the road despite being the No. 1 overall seed. That's one of my biggest problems with this format. You should want more fans to be able to attend games. Four Regionals accomplish that. Two Regionals doesn't. It also makes no sense that the closest Regional site for the No. 1 overall seed is 1,500 miles away! The men have every area of the country with their four Regionals. The women should do the same thing.
But I digress. There are four clear No. 1 seeds and three clear No. 2 seeds. I'm not sure who'll get that fourth No. 2 between TCU, Iowa and West Virginia, but I'm giving it to Big XII regular season champion TCU. If it doesn't go to the Horned Frogs, I'd imagine it'll probably be Iowa.
On the other end of the spectrum, I think there are five teams in the mix for the final three spots--three of which are also in the Big XII. Of those three, Arizona State has the strongest tournament resume, so the Sun Devils are in. Likewise, Utah has the weakest tournament resume of the three, so the Utes are out. That leaves BYU, Richmond and Nebraska for the last two spots in the First Four. Richmond's had such a good season that you can't leave them out. So, it's down to BYU vs. Nebraska. I think BYU is the better team. That's my rationale for choosing them.
With that, it gives the Big Ten 11 teams instead of 12, which is still the most. The SEC has 10, but the quality is so much higher with four of them among the top eight overall seeds and five hosting (which equals the Big Ten's number). Nine teams each for the ACC and Big 12, with the Atlantic 10 and Big East landing two teams apiece. That's it. Just six conferences with multiple bids.
FORT WORTH 1
16-Holy Cross at 1-Connecticut (1), 8-Iowa State vs. 9-Syracuse
13-Green Bay at 4-Ohio State, 12-BYU/Richmond vs. 5-Mississippi
14-Louisiana Tech at 3-Iowa, 6-Baylor vs. 11-Fairfield
15-Western Illinois at 2-Vanderbilt, 7-Illinois vs. 10-South Dakota State
SACRAMENTO 4
16-FDU/Howard at 1-South Carolina (4), 8-NC State vs. 9-USC
13-Idaho at 4-Maryland, 5-Kentucky vs. 12-Murray State
14-UC San Diego at 3-Oklahoma, 6-Texas Tech vs. 11-Princeton
15-High Point at 2-Duke, 7-Alabama vs. 10-Colorado
SACRAMENTO 2
16-Stephen F. Austin at 1-UCLA (2), 8-Villanova vs. 9-Tennessee
13-Colorado State at 4-Louisville, 5-Michigan State vs. 12-Gonzaga
14-Vermont at 3-West Virginia, 6-Notre Dame vs. 11-Rhode Island
15-Jacksonville at 2-LSU, 7-Oklahoma State vs. 10-Rice
FORT WORTH 3
16-Southern/Samford at 1-Texas (3), 8-Oregon vs. 9-Clemson
13-Charleston at 4-North Carolina, 5-Minnesota vs. 12-James Madison
14-Miami OH at 3-Michigan, 6-Georgia vs. 11-Virginia/Arizona State
15-Cal Baptist at 2-TCU, 7-Washington vs. 10-Virginia Tech
Last year's National Championship Game was a matchup between UConn and South Carolina. If all of the 1-seeds make it to Phoenix, they'll meet in this year's semifinals. UCLA and Texas, meanwhile, would square off in the other semi. And, if the top four seeds are the last four standing, that'll be a wide-open Women's Final Four where anyone can win.
Thursday, March 12, 2026
What to Do About the World Cup?
As much as we'd all like to believe sports and politics can be kept separate, sometimes it's unavoidable. Sometimes sports and politics are so intertwined that it's impossible to keep them apart. Especially when it comes to large-scale international sporting events. Politics are why we've had Olympic boycotts and Olympic bans. Politics are why "Chinese Taipei" is a thing and Israel, despite being in Asia, is a member of the European federation in every sport. And, you can ask just about any athlete from Ukraine about how sports, politics and war have intersected over the past four years.
Unfortunately, this summer's World Cup has become one of those unavoidable intersections of sports and politics. Iran was the first country to qualify for the World Cup. The United States is the primary host of the World Cup, and Iran's three games are all scheduled to take place in the U.S. The United States just started a war with Iran. To say that "complicates" Iran's participation would be an understatement.
Iranian fans were already not allowed to travel to the World Cup because of the U.S. travel ban, but the team is qualified and still welcome. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has reiterated that. So has Donald Trump, who also "suggested" that Iran should consider withdrawing "for their own safety." Which is similar to the position taken by Iran's Sports Minister, whose reasons for considering withdrawal are obviously much different.
While no decision has been made, I don't see any way in which Iran participates in the World Cup. For a variety of reasons. The optics are impossible to ignore. It would be an uncomfortable situation all around, and Iranian players would be thrust right into the middle of it! Which is something you don't want. That's if they're even able to get the team together for training, travel to the U.S., etc., all of which are uncertain right now.
The Iranian women's team has already had very real issues. They were in Australia for the Women's Asian Cup. They arrived before the war started, but, by the time they were eliminated, the war had broken out, Iranian airspace was closed, and it was impossible to fly into Tehran. They stayed in Australia for a few extra days (and five players were granted asylum) while officials tried to figure out travel arrangements before finally making their way to Malaysia. When and how they'll make it back to Iran is anybody's guess.
FIFA likely won't require Iran to make its decision on any set timetable. Nor should they. However, they do need to start thinking about contingency plans. Because more nations than just Iran will be impacted by whatever is ultimately decided. And, for the sake of those countries, hopefully it's determined soon. Ideally before the final qualifying tournament at the end of the month.
Four years ago, FIFA backed into lucking out with the late World Cup because COVID delays pushed the end of qualifying into March. That's apparently a regular thing now, since the draw was made in December despite six teams not being qualified yet. Those final qualifiers are set for the March FIFA international window, with the two intercontinental tournaments set for Mexico as World Cup tune-up events.
One of those intercontinental playoffs is set to feature Iraq playing a winner-take-all game against the winner of Suriname-Bolivia. However, because of the instability in the Middle East, Iraq's ability to even get to Mexico for that tournament is in question. Iraqi airspace is closed until at least April 1, making it difficult for the players and coaches to travel anywhere outside the region. And, many of the players who are based in Iraq can't even get visas to enter Mexico right now.
With all of this uncertainty and turmoil, Iraq was already forced to cancel its scheduled training camp in Houston. But their coach would like to take it one step further. He's requested that FIFA postpone the playoff (at least Iraq's game). The country is looking reach the World Cup for the first time in 40 years (which was, coincidentally, also in Mexico). This qualifier is obviously a big deal for Iraq. It wouldn't be right to make them play their most significant game in four decades without their first-choice squad, which he feels would be impossible if the playoff remains scheduled for March 31.
Delaying the playoff actually does make a lot of sense. Yes, it screws up the timing tremendously and isn't ideal for Belgium, Egypt and New Zealand (the other teams in Iran's group) or France, Senegal and Norway (the other teams in the Iraq/Suriname/Bolivia group), but there are also plenty of potential positives. Most notably, they should have a clearer picture of what's happening with Iran then, which would allow them to adjust how to handle their (assumed) withdrawal and how to replace them.
If they delay the playoff and Iran does withdraw, that's actually the most straightforward scenario. Iraq could then move into Iran's place in Group G and the United Arab Emirates (the team Iraq beat to secure that Asian spot in the qualifier) would replace Iraq in the qualifier against Suriname/Bolivia. That would give both Iraq and UAE adequate time to prepare while also removing the uncertainty about who'll replace Iran.
Meanwhile, if the playoff is held as scheduled and Iraq wins, then Iran withdraws after that date, what do you do then? It would have to be another Asian team and UAE is next in line, so you'd figure they'd be the most likely replacement. But that would raise questions of fairness with a team that had multiple chances to qualify being handed a spot at the last minute. What would be the other option, though? Having Iraq replace Iran and the Bolivia-Suriname winner advance regardless? How is that fair to whoever loses in the other intercontinental playoff?
There's precedent for both options. Denmark was added to Euro 92 as a replacement for Yugoslavia 10 days before the tournament started and ended up winning the whole thing. Likewise, last year at the Club World Cup, Leon was removed from the tournament by FIFA after qualifying, so there was a play-in game between LA FC and Club America for the final spot on May 31 before the main tournament started on June 14. This year's Champions League final is on May 30 and the World Cup starts on June 11, so it would be tight, but it's still doable.
June 11 is obviously three months away. A lot can change between now and then. But it doesn't just seem unlikely that Iran will play in the World Cup, it seems impossible. It's not a question of if they'll withdraw, but when. And how FIFA will replace them once that happens.
Sunday, March 8, 2026
Respect the RedHawks
With a thrilling overtime win at Ohio on Saturday, Miami (Ohio) completed a perfect 31-0 regular season. The RedHawks are the only undefeated team in the country. They have been for weeks. They're ranked in the Top 20. Yet there are some who believe that Miami (Ohio) has to win the MAC Tournament to guarantee an NCAA Tournament bid. Because apparently having their only loss of the season come in the conference tournament won't be enough. Which is simply an asinine sentence to even type!
Bruce Pearl made himself look like a fool last week when he tried to argue on TNT that, despite being undefeated, Miami (Ohio) didn't "deserve" to be an NCAA Tournament team if they didn't win the MAC Tournament. The crux of his argument was that, if they don't get the MAC's auto bid, they aren't one of the 37 "best" teams in the mix for an at-large bid. He even said that he mid-major teams "recognize they're only going to be a one-bid league" and added that he thought Miami (Ohio) would finish last if they played in the Big East.
Not surprisingly, Miami (OH) Athletic Director David Salyer fired back. He had a very pointed response to Pearl. Salyer called Pearl out for his comments, saying it was "disgusting" how much disrespect he was showing the RedHawks. He was also quick to note the blatant bias Pearl was displaying regarding the team he thought should in over Miami (OH). Auburn.
Pearl took Auburn to the Final Four in 2019 and again last season. He abruptly quit as the Tigers' head coach just before this season began and handed the reins over to his son, Seven. So, to say he has a vested interest in Auburn's success would be an understatement. It may not be Auburn grad Charles Barkley hugging a stuffed tiger on the set, but it's close. Pearl might as well be painting his face orange and blue and chanting "War Eagle." He even slipped a "we" into the discussion when talking about Auburn!
TV commentators are supposed to be unbiased. Bruce Pearl clearly is not, which completely destroyed his credibility. He claims his opinions on Auburn and Miami (OH) have nothing to do with him being Auburn's former coach or his son currently occupying the position, but come on now! It got to the point where Pearl (no doubt in response to the controversy that he created and brought upon himself) tried to course correct and make light of his role as antagonist in an interview with Miami (OH)'s head coach...which only made him look that much worse!
Steven Pearl isn't exactly helping his father's cause, either. Auburn lost its regular season finale on Saturday to fall to 16-15 overall and 7-11 in the SEC. Yet, there was the younger Pearl in his press conference touting his team's tournament resume. It was basically the same argument Bruce made. Auburn has one of the best wins in the country at Florida. That's the crux of their argument. Oh, and strength of schedule, which is an inherent advantage Power 5 teams have because they, you know, play each other!
Miami (OH) doesn't have the strength of schedule of an Auburn (or any SEC team for that matter). That isn't exactly their fault. As their AD said in his response to Pearl, good teams didn't want to play the RedHawks, especially in Oxford, because they knew they might lose. It's the same plight Gonzaga had to deal with for years. It's also not Miami (OH)'s fault that the MAC is a mid-major league. I'm sure they'd like to play better opponents if they could, but they can't control who's on their conference schedule or how good their conference is that particular year.
The "strength of schedule" argument has been a popular one for the talking heads advocating the tournament cases of specific teams for years now. Not surprisingly, those strength of schedule advocates tend to be making a case for SEC or Big Ten teams. Meanwhile, it's the same argument every year! Of course SEC and Big Ten teams will have a better strength of schedule than mid-major schools!
According to KenPom, the top 13 strengths of schedule and 28 of the 30 are from either the SEC, Big Ten or Big 12. That's not a coincidence. Once conference play starts, they're only playing each other and nobody else! Which is true about all teams in every conference. So, Power 5 teams are being rewarded for playing conference games. Whether they win them or not is irrelevant. Meanwhile, mid-major teams are essentially being penalized for playing conference games and having every loss held against them. How does that make any sense?! That's why strength of schedule can't be this end-all, be-all metric some would like it to be.
So, like all other mid-majors, Miami (Ohio), through no fault of their own, already has factors working against their at-large case. The only thing the RedHawks can control is whether or not they win. Which they've done. Every time they've taken the floor this season. They're the only team in the nation who can say that. Now you're saying that's not enough, either? What kind of a message does that send?
That's something the committee really needs to consider. Mid-major teams already feel like the deck is stacked against them. Even more so now that the Power 5 conferences have become supersized and extended their grip on college sports. The number of mid-major berths for non-Power 5 programs has already been shrinking year-to-year. Last year, there were only three. If Miami (OH) can go the entire season undefeated and is still being talked about as only a bubble team if their first blemish comes in the conference tournament, what does that say? If perfection isn't enough, mid-majors might as well not even bother, then.
Consider the optics of it, too. We're talking about an Auburn team that's .500 overall and four games under .500 in conference play. If they lose their SEC Tournament opener, they'll be 16-16. The fact that we're even talking about a 16-16 team as being in the discussion for an at-large bid, frankly, is a joke! Meanwhile, we're also saying that a team whose record entering the Tournament is, at worst, 31-1, is on the bubble if they don't win their conference tournament. What are we even doing here if the .500 team gets the nod?
Winning matters. At least it should. That's all Miami (Ohio) has done this season. Meanwhile, Auburn hasn't done it nearly enough. Yes, they have some very good wins. The victory at Florida most prominent among them. But are we supposed to just ignore the fact that they also lost half their games (including a 30-point drubbing against Michigan) and went 2-8 to end the regular season? Sorry, but I'm not buying that.
This isn't intended to be a Miami (Ohio) vs. Auburn argument. It's simply designed to highlight the absurdity of comparing a mediocre team from a Power 5 conference to a very good mid-major team. Strength of schedule can't be the only factor considered. Because it's an inherently unfair comparison (which may be the entire point).
It's also not an argument about whether Miami (Ohio) is a better team than Auburn. It's about whether they deserve an at-large bid. Which they most certainly do. If that's at Auburn's expense, them's the berries. Nobody is trying to make the case that Miami (Ohio) deserves a No. 1 seed or is even a contender for the National Championship. Everyone understands that the RedHawks will most likely end the season with a loss. That loss should come in the NCAA Tournament. That's the point.
Of course, Miami (Ohio) could just win the MAC Tournament and make everybody's lives easier. But it shouldn't even need to come to that. Because the RedHawks deserve to hear their name called on Selection Sunday whether they have one loss or none. It would be an absolute travesty if they don't.
Friday, March 6, 2026
Crazy Conference Tournament Brackets
It's March. Which means we'll be on college basketball overload for the next few weeks. The Power 5 leagues are still finishing up conference play, but conference tournaments have already begun in the mid-majors. Everybody knows that these are one-bid leagues, so the conference tournaments have that much more meaning in these smaller conferences. Which is what makes them so much fun to watch.
Conference tournaments used to be a straightforward proposition. However many teams were in the league, you'd set your bracket so that everyone participates and is seeded accordingly. If you have 10 teams, the top six get a bye, the other four have to play an extra game. However many rounds there are, that's the number of days you need. Most conferences had 10-12 teams, so the conference tournaments generally took four days from start to finish.
As conferences expanded, so did their tournaments. Extra games and extra days had to be added. Some conferences (I'm sure with TV and arena considerations taken into account) opted to keep the same number of days, games and teams, adding a new wrinkle of making teams need to qualify for the conference tournament. While others have taken full advantage of their unwieldy conference sizes to have equally unwieldy conference tournaments.
This season for the first time, all 18 teams will qualify for the Big Ten Tournament. A six-day, 17-game extravaganza where the bottom four teams in the conference have to win six games in six days while the top four have byes into the quarterfinals, meaning they only need to win three in three. The Big Ten bracket is at least straightforward, though. Which is more than I can say for the absolute craziness some of the mid-majors are providing us.
Let's start with our friends in the West Coast Conference, who've used their stepladder tournament format for several years now. With Washington State and Oregon State temporarily playing in the WCC while they rebuilt the Pac-12, the WCC Tournament has 12 teams this season. It'll take six days to finish the tournament. Why? Because they're only playing two games a day!
In the WCC, the top two seeds (who are almost always Gonzaga and Saint Mary's in either order) get a bye into the semifinals! The 3 & 4 seeds get byes into the quarterfinals, with the 5 & 6 seeds entering the round before that and the 7 & 8 seeds playing the winners of the first-round games between the bottom four teams. Does it make sense? Logically, yes. Is it super unwieldy? Absolutely!
The stepladder tournament was originally just a West Coast Conference thing. They've now been one-upped by the Sun Belt Conference, which is doing the same thing, but with 14 teams. Which means seven rounds! The conference tournament will literally take a week! And that's not even the craziest thing about it.
Finishing in the top two and getting that bye all the way to the semifinals is obviously a huge advantage in these stepladder tournaments. Except the Sun Belt was such an evenly-balanced conference this season that there was a six-way tie for second (all of whom were only one game out of first)! After the tiebreakers were applied, Marshall ended up with the 2-seed, meaning they only need to win two games to get the Sun Belt's NCAA bid. Meanwhile, Arkansas State, which had the same conference record as Marshall, is the 7-seed and has to win five games in five days.
Therein lies the problem with stepladder tournaments. In the WCC, it's hardly mattered or even really been noticed since Gonzaga and Saint Mary's are clearly the top two teams by a wide margin. But, as the Sun Belt showed us, you can have two teams finish with the same record and one get an extremely favorable path while the other very much doesn't. A problem that wouldn't exist in a traditional tournament format with four quarterfinals and the top two seeds not getting such a ridiculous advantage over everybody else.
Then there's the Horizon League, which is giving us the most unique conference tournament format I've ever seen. There are 11 teams in the Horizon League. The tournament started with a 10 vs. 11 play-in game for the right to go against the No. 1 seed in the first round. The first round then consisted of five games played on campus. The five teams that advanced were then reseeded, with the bottom two teams playing another play-in game at the conference tournament site to see who'll be the fourth semifinalist.
Are you as confused by this format as I am? It's like something you'd see in a double-elimination conference baseball or softball tournament where they're trying to protect the top seed as best they can. And the reseeding thing would even make sense if they were having four teams go right to the semifinals. But the second play-in game is as stupid as it is unnecessary. Why not just have two first-round games and four quarterfinals?
All of these wacky conference tournaments are designed with the NCAA Tournament in mind. No conference wants to see its 6-seed go on a run and end up in Dayton (although, I'm not entirely sure why...a First Four win counts the same as any other NCAA Tournament win). They all want to have their best team represent the conference in the NCAA Tournament, especially if they're a one-bid league. So, they're doing everything they can to make sure the regular season champion (or, at worst, the 2-seed) has the best chance of advancing. Which isn't a guarantee even with some of these crazy setups.
While I have no data to support this theory, I'd even argue that some of these tournament formats may actually be a disadvantage to the higher seeds. Not only do they have an immense amount of pressure on them, they're sitting around waiting while everyone else is playing. It's the classic rest vs. rust argument. And if a team gets hot, a higher-seeded team, even a well-rested one, ain't doing anything to stop them. (In the glory days of the Big East Tournament, we saw Gerry McNamara's Syracuse team and Kemba Walker's UConn team both win five games in five days to win the championship.)
And, ultimately, it doesn't matter. Whether intended or not, the wacky formats have achieved another goal. They've got people talking about them. If they didn't have a ridiculous six-way tie, no one would know how quirky the Sun Belt Tournament setup is. So, I guess they're getting the last laugh after all. Because they've got people paying attention to the conference tournament instead of just the final. Where the higher seeds may or may not capitalize on the huge advantage they've been given.
Tuesday, March 3, 2026
Best In the Baseball World
So, why do I think this is the best American team ever? Pitching. It's that simple. Pitching has always been the weakness. It's understandable that teams and pitchers are cautious at this time of year. The tournament takes place during Spring Training and there are so many rules put in place to protect the pitchers. As a result, the U.S. has never had elite top-tier starting pitchers available and willing to participate. That's not the case this year. Both Cy Young winners will make a start, as will Giants ace Logan Webb, who'll pitch the opener. People are making a big deal about Tarik Skubal only making one start. But...the maximum number of starts he'd make is two anyway, and I'll take one Tarik Skubal start over zero Tarik Skubal starts!
You also still need to consider defending champion Japan as, at the very least, a co-favorite. Japan has the best player on the planet. Ohtani won't pitch in the WBC, but his mere presence is intimidating enough. And the Japanese pitching staff still includes a Dodger--who just happens to be coming off winning World Series MVP. So, yeah, the Japanese will be as formidable as ever.
Then there's the Dominican Republic. They have the strongest lineup in the tournament (the United States is really the only team that's remotely comparable). They also have the pitching to back it up. Sandy Alcantara. Cristopher Sanchez. Brayan Bello. Then, in the bullpen, Gregory Soto, Camilo Doval and Seranthony Dominguez, among others. A second WBC championship by the DR wouldn't be a shock at all.
There's one other team I think is a formidable contender for the title. Venezuela. This is the first time they're playing a WBC without Miguel Cabrera (who's on the coaching staff), but still boast an incredibly strong lineup. The only question is the pitching. They nearly beat the U.S. in the quarterfinals three years ago. You know the memory of that loss will drive them in 2026. And getting past the quarterfinals is definitely a realistic possibility.
Pool A: Pool A is perhaps the most evenly-matched of the four. Puerto Rico is playing at home and probably the most talented of the four teams (even if they've had stronger rosters at past WBCs). Cuba, meanwhile, reached the semifinals in 2023 and boasts the legend Alfredo Despaigne along with a good number of Cuban-born MLB players. Either one of them can win the pool.
This is a really great opportunity for Canada, too. Canada is not in the same pool as the U.S. for the first time, which could be their ticket for advancing to the second round for the first time. Panama finished fourth in its group in 2023 to avoid the qualifying round, while Colombia had to play in the qualifiers and rolled right through it. Colombia beat eventual semifinalist Mexico in the opening game of the 2023 tournament and has a much stronger roster than Panama. I expect them to win that game and get the automatic spot in the next WBC.
Pool B: It's odd that they put two of the 2023 semifinalists--the United States and Mexico--in the same group. I get wanting Mexico to play in Houston. But they also just as easily could've had Mexico hosting the first round and send either Venezuela or the DR to Houston. Either way, they should both easily advance. It's just a question of who'll win that game to take the pool.
Also curious was the decision to put Great Britain and Brazil, two of the weakest teams, in the same group. Which is good news for whoever wins that game and doesn't have to go to the qualifiers. Italy advanced to the quarterfinals in 2023 thanks to that wacky five-way tiebreaker. And, in 2017, they beat Mexico in the opening game, then only missed reaching the second round because they lost a winner-take-all tiebreaker game. If any of the other three teams is gonna challenge the U.S. or Mexico, it'll be Italy.
Pool C: Czechia was the darlings of the 2023 WBC, qualifying for the first time and beating China in the opening game. That got them a spot in the 2026 edition, where they've once again been drawn into the Asian pool. Unfortunately, I don't see how the Czechs avoid dropping into the qualifier this time. This pool is just too strong. It's arguably the strongest of the tournament.
Japan has been to the semifinals of every WBC, so let's assume they've got one of the two quarterfinal spots. Australia took the other one in 2023 after beating South Korea in the opening game. Chinese Taipei, meanwhile, went 2-2, but finished last in its pool on a tiebreaker, then nearly didn't make it out of the qualifiers. But they're the No. 2 team in the world and looking to get out of the first round for the first time since 2013. On paper, you've gotta give the nod to the Koreans, though.
Pool D: I already pegged the Dominican Republic and Venezuela as two of the tournament favorites, so it shouldn't be a surprise to hear that I expect them both to advance. This pool doesn't have a "home" team, but has the advantage of playing the entire tournament in Miami. The teams they'll face in the quarterfinals will both be traveling from Tokyo, meanwhile. That could make a huge difference, and it's one of the reasons I can see both the DR and Venezuela reaching the semifinals.
Of course, getting out of the pool isn't guaranteed. Not when a formidable team from the Netherlands, a two-time semifinalist, is lurking. While I don't expect it to happen, it wouldn't be shocking to see the Dutch advance over either of the Latin American teams. Israel had a much better WBC in its 2017 debut than it did in 2023, when they lost back-to-back games 10-0 and Puerto Rico threw a perfect game against them. Still, they should beat Nicaragua and avoid needing to play the qualifiers next time.
My quarterfinal matchups are Puerto Rico vs. Mexico, the United States vs. Cuba, Japan vs. Venezuela and Dominican Republic vs. South Korea. That's the importance of that Dominican Republic-Venezuela game. Winning Pool D and avoiding a quarterfinal against Japan. It's the last game of pool play in the entire tournament, and it might as well be a playoff game. Because the stakes will be HUGE. And you know the intensity will be there.
Whoever wins that goes to the semifinals. Whoever loses likely loses to Japan. Since I've got the DR winning that game, I've also got them reaching the semis. Along with the United States, Mexico and Japan. The semifinal matchups would be a rematch of 2023: Mexico vs. Japan and arguably the game of the tournament: the United States vs. the Dominican Republic.
That USA vs DR game could easily be a de facto championship. Although, I do have the United States winning to set up a rematch of the 2026 championship against Japan. Except this time, the U.S. will come out on top. After two hockey gold medals over archrival Canada, why not add a baseball championship over archrival Japan to the collection in 2026?
Saturday, February 28, 2026
ABS Is Here
After almost a full month of Olympics and football posts, I've decided to give you all a break and talk about something else. Baseball. A topic that I'm sure you'll probably be sick of once the season starts, especially with the WBC starting next week. One of the things we'll see in the WBC is something new for the regular season that we've already seen used in Spring Training. The ABS challenge system.
We've known that the ABS challenge system was coming this year since MLB announced it towards the end of last season. While some fans were clamoring for MLB to fully adopt ABS, that was never going to happen. They experimented with it both ways (challenge system and completely automated) in the Minors, and the clear preference among players was the challenge system. Which was definitely the way to go, for several reasons.
Each team gets two challenges per game, and only the pitcher, catcher or hitter can challenge. They also need to do it immediately. No asking the dugout. No checking with anybody else. So, there's a strategy element to it. Because you've gotta know the situation and whether it's worth it to use a challenge that may be needed later in the game.
Some teams have already indicated that they won't let their pitchers challenge. Which is probably a good idea. Because pitchers think everything is a strike! We've seen that already in Spring Training--pitchers challenging on pitches that aren't even close to being in the strike zone. The Yankees were out of challenges in the second inning the other day because Luis Gil was completely wrong twice!
Another thing that we've seen thru the first few days of Spring Training games is how some ABS challenges are kind of ridiculous. There are clips of ABS challenges that show an umpire's call being overturned from a ball to a strike because a low pitch nicked the very bottom edge of the zone. Likewise, ABS turned a strike into a ball because the pitch was a millimeter outside.
Seriously, how can you blame the home plate umpire for "missing" either of those? If anything, ABS is showing just how accurate Major League umpires actually are. They are the best in the business for a reason, after all. And everybody's getting used to the system, so is it possible that we're seeing pitches challenged in Spring Training that wouldn't necessarily be challenged in the regular season? Absolutely!
Challenging pitches that close really isn't in the spirit of the ABS system. Especially since teams only get two challenges. Do you really want to use one unless you're sure you're right? And, again, can you fault the umpire for getting that "wrong" initially? It's worth keeping in mind, too, that the ABS strike zone is based on the individual batter's height, so the exact same pitch might be a strike to one hitter and a ball to somebody else.
Much like instant replay, the purpose of the ABS challenge system is designed to correct calls that are obviously wrong. Close pitches that just nick the corner aren't "obviously" wrong. If it's late in the game and you have your challenges left, I can see it. Even if you're not sure. But that's the type of challenge I hope we don't see (from either the offense or defense) with the bases empty and nobody out in the third inning of a 0-0 game once the games start to count. Does it really matter if the count is 2-0 or 1-1 at that point?
Umpires aren't perfect. They know that. That's why they're in favor of replay. And that's why they're all for the ABS challenge system, as well. They want to get it right. Just like replay, ABS is a tool for them to do that. And that's what ABS is designed to be. A tool. No one is looking to replace human umpires. This is just a tool at their disposal to help them get it correct. Which is everyone's goal.
Like replay reviews, ABS challenges will be a fun new element for fans. As soon as the challenge is initiated, it'll be shown on the stadium video board for everybody to see. And, like replay reviews, whatever the video shows is the call. It'll either confirm that the call was correct and the count stays the same or overturn it and change the count. Teams are required to put the remaining challenges on the scoreboard, too, so the entire stadium will know how many each team has left.
It'll change broadcasts, too. Any team that has the strike zone box on their TV broadcast has to put it on a delay. Likewise, MLB has asked broadcasters that have little circles in that box to not differentiate between balls and strikes on the graphic. It'll be up to them to determine how to do it, but I'd imagine it'll just show the location of each pitch and nothing else (although, balls that are put in play would probably still be notated on MLB.com's live stats).
So, why a challenge system instead of full ABS? Well, for one, it would eliminate the human element, which I don't think anybody wanted. It would also eliminate catchers' ability to frame pitches, a skill that has been developed over time that players don't want to see taken out of the game. Not to mention the fact that full ABS (A) would be boring and (B) wouldn't entirely be correct.
During the Minor League testing, they found that full ABS resulted in more walks, which made games longer. And, as I said, it wouldn't necessarily be completely accurate. Breaking balls that broke late for strikes could still end up getting registered as balls based on where the ABS picked up when they crossed the plate. Same thing with pitches that catch the corner. And, as infrequent as it is at the professional level, a pitch could bounce before the plate, then get picked up by ABS as a strike even though it's obviously a ball.
Ultimately, the ABS challenge system is the best of both worlds. It's a compromise between fully automated and a fully umpire-called zone. It's a welcome change without fully removing the traditional element. And, like instant replay, the ABS challenge system will only enhance the game experience for everyone. Players, umpires and fans alike.