2018-2019 B1G Basketball Thread

[ELA]

Couple of great endings tonight in the CAA and Horizon semis

[medinabuckeye1]

Michigan is definitely playing to avoid a 3 seed and at least get back to a 2 seed now, and I think they'd get a 1 seed if they win it (Gonzaga and probably Virginia will be 1 seeds but the others are open)..... Same goes for Sparty and to a lesser extent Purdue, whose non-con losses hold them back.

If Matthews can play major minutes if needed (even if he's the 6th man behind Livers and Brazdeikis, that's still good), I like Michigan's chances. Obviously, Simpson and Teske have been part of two BTT-winning teams despite playing 4 games in 4 days including the first one after the plane crash. The other main players aside from Brazdeikis were on the team last year, too..... The matchups appear favorable, too, with Sparty and Wisconsin on the other side (yes, Iowa beat Michigan, too, but that was in Iowa City when Castleton finally got his first real playing time backing up Teske, who had 2 early fouls that game, and I'm not sure they'll even win on Thursday with the way they're playing of late). Michigan still matches up well with Purdue, too, even considering their improvement since December.

Thank you for replying.  
I meant the question on a "per game" rather than a "per team" basis.  I think your answer is more "per team".  Ie, when you say that you think Michigan, and Purdue are playing to avoid a #3 seed I think that they might be, but not in one game.  
I also disagree with your assessment of the B1G's chances of getting a #1 seed.  I think that MSU is our best chance for that with Michigan a distant second and Purdue having essentially no chance.  MSU, IMHO, would need to win the BTT and they would still need some help.  Michigan's chances, IMHO, are quite slim.  In addition to winning the BTT, I think that they would need multiple unlikely results in other conferences.  
That said, I hadn't realized it until you pointed it out, but Michigan does appear to have a strongly favorable BTT draw.  I agree with you on Iowa, I think that it is at least 50/50 that they'll lose to the IL/NU winner.  Even if not, the Hawkeyes are just not a quality team right now.  All of that means that the Wolverines are just one upset (PSU/MN over PU) away from being able to get into the B1GCG without playing any strong opposition.  

[MaximumSam]

Gonzaga and Virginia seem pretty locked in to 1 seeds.  If Duke makes a run with a healthy Zion, they are probably a 1 too.  Kentucky and Tennessee still in contention based on their tourney.  So it will be tough.

[MaximumSam]

Also, I suppose Houston should be considered - they are 29-2 and sitting 4th in NET ranking.

[medinabuckeye1]

Gonzaga and Virginia seem pretty locked in to 1 seeds.  If Duke makes a run with a healthy Zion, they are probably a 1 too.  Kentucky and Tennessee still in contention based on their tourney.  So it will be tough.

Also, I suppose Houston should be considered - they are 29-2 and sitting 4th in NET ranking.

While I personally believe that teams should have very strong SoS to get a #1 seed, as a practical matter that will not necessarily prevail and I agree with your assessment.  I don't think any B1G team aside from MAYBE MSU could get a #1 seed this year and even MSU would need some help.  

[medinabuckeye1]

@medinabuckeye1 Any chance you could look at our tier projections from the beginning of the season, perhaps again midway through the season, and at the end of the season, to see how much things changed?

I know you said you don't normally track changes through the year, but given that you've posted in this thread with updates for basically preseason [or perhaps after the 2 December games], I recall you posting around the midpoint (all teams between 9 and 11 games played), and now we're at the end...

I think it would be a useful thing to track how much our projections from start of the season to the end are accurate.

I went ahead and did this for @bwarbiany and anyone else who is interested in reviewing how accurate our projections were or were not.  I used my updates from within this thread and checked us three times.  All of my dates are BEFORE any games played on that date.  

• January 7:  At this point I think all teams were about four games into conference play with about 16 to go.  
• January 28:  At this point I think all teams were about 10 games into conference play with about 10 to go.  
• February 15:  At this point I think all teams were about 14 games into conference play with about six to go.  

Here is the comparison:

Team	1/7 check	1/28 check	2/15 check	7-Jan	28-Jan	15-Feb	Actual
Purdue	-3	1	1	13	17	17	16
MSU	-1	2	0	15	18	16	16
M	2	3	0	17	18	15	15
UW	0	-3	1	14	11	15	14
UMD	-3	-1	1	10	12	14	13
Iowa	-2	0	3	8	10	13	10
Minny	-2	0	-2	7	9	7	9
tOSU	4	1	0	12	9	8	8
IU	7	1	-3	15	9	5	8
ILL	-3	-2	3	4	5	10	7
RU	-4	-3	0	3	4	7	7
PSU	-3	-6	-4	4	1	3	7
UNL	7	4	-1	13	10	5	6
NU	1	3	1	5	7	5	4

Explaining this chart:

• Team:  This is obviously the team, as indicated.  
• 1/7 check:  This is our projected number of wins as of January 7 minus the team's actual final total B1G wins.  Example:  Purdue ended up with 16 wins and on January 7 we projected that they would have 13, 13-16=-3.  
• 1/28 check:  This is our projected number of wins as of January 28 minus the team's actual final total B1G wins.  Example:  Purdue ended up with 16 wins and on January 28 we projected that they would have 17, 17-16=1.  
• 2/15 check:  This is our projected number of wins as of February 15 minus the team's actual final total B1G wins.  Example:  Purdue ended up with 16 wins and on February 15 we projected that they would have 17, 17-16=1.  
• 7-Jan:  Our projected number of B1G wins for each team as indicated as of January 7.  
• 28-Jan:  Our projected number of B1G wins for each team as indicated as of January 28.  
• 15-Feb:  Our projected number of B1G wins for each team as indicated as of February 15.  
• Actual:  The final actual number of B1G wins for each team as indicated.  

Positive and Negative:

• Negative numbers indicate that we undervalued a team.  For example in the 1/7 check column Purdue has a "-3".  That indicates that we undervalued them by three games (note that at about that time I was being told by some Purdue fan that I should move Purdue to a LOWER tier.  
• Positive numbers indicate that we overvalued a team.  For example in the 1/7 check column Michigan has a "2".  That indicates that we overvalued them by two games.  

Some thoughts:
First, as one would expect, we got more accurate as the season progressed.  If you sum the absolute value of the 1/7 check column you get 42.  Ie, as of 1/7 we were off by a grand total of 42 games.  By January 28 this figure was down to 30 and by February 15 it was down to 20.  

As of January 7 we were dead on for Wisconsin.  We were also +/-3 for all other teams except four:

• We were WAY OFF on Indiana.  We were projecting 15 wins and they only ended up with eight.  I think our projection was reasonable based on their OOC wins over Lousiville and Marquette.  
• We were WAY OFF on Nebraska.  We were projecting 13 wins and they only ended up with six.  I think Nebraska was a better team prior to the injury.  
• We were off on Ohio State.  We were projecting 12 wins and they only ended up with eight.  The Buckeyes started January on a five-game losing streak and the projection was quickly adjusted to what turned out to be very accurate.  
• We were off on Rutgers.  We were projecting three wins and they ended up with seven.  I think that Rutgers improved over the course of the season and our projections eventually reflected that.  

As of January 28 we were dead on for Iowa and Minnesota.  We were also +/-1 for four more teams (total of six teams within +/-1), +/-2 for two more teams (total of eight teams within +/-2), and four more within +/-3.  We were only off by more than three games on two teams:

• We were WAY OFF on Penn State.  We were projecting only one win and they ended up with seven.  Prior to that Penn State seemed to have a knack for losing close games so we dropped them a few tiers but they corrected it later.  
• We were off on Nebraska.  We were projecting 10 wins and they only ended up with six.  This was during the adjustment period as Nebraska regressed.  

As of February 15 we were dead on for Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Rutgers.  We were also +/-1 for five teams (total of nine within +/-1).  The other five were:

• We were off on Penn State.  We were projecting three wins and they ended up with six.  
• We were off on Indiana.  We were projecting five wins and they ended up with eight.  They finished REALLY strong.  
• We were off on Iowa.  We were projecting 13 wins and they only ended up with 10.  They finished REALLY weak.  
• We were off on Illinois.  We were projecting 10 wins and they only ended up with seven.  They finished REALLY weak.  
• We were off on Minnesota.  We were projecting seven wins and they ended up with nine.  They finished REALLY strong.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

Good stuff, Medina... 

I think PSU is a really interesting team, and I'm not excited to play them Friday if they knock off Minnesota. Bart Torvik has them as the 6th-best team in the country efficiency-wise in the last 10 games. They look like the type of team that COULD actually make a heck of a run through the BTT.

[bayareabadger]

So, UW went 22-9. That's maybe in the realm I was thinking, hoping they'd land, but I thought the schedule wouldn't be quite so daunting. Im happy with it.

I try to write this every year, but 20 wins is an important number. Outside Nebraska last year, it gets you dancing most often. It's a sign the program is on stable ground that year. Some years 20 comes on the way to something greater. Sometimes it comes at the end, providing a sigh of relief. But I've seen 20 all but two years as a UW fan, and the two years before I took this up. Last year, I missed that consistency, this year I see a return, and unless losing Happ and Iverson just ruins things, the return of seven Big Ten rotation players should mean another 20 the next couple years.

It's just nice is all.

[bayareabadger]

So I'm watching the Summit League title game. A 17-15 North Dakota State team is up on second-seeded Omaha. Someone not there is Mike Daum. The three-time Summit League player of the year is not playing. His team went home (well, I think home is near the arena where this is happening), courtesy of an upset loss to a then-9-win Western Illinois team. SDSU fell behind, a 78-percent FT shooter missed two in the final to minutes to stop a late rally, and the team that won the conference and was five games ahead of the third-place team will go to the NIT.

And all I could think of was Alec Peters. 

For those who don't recall, Peters was a monster for Valpo. As a sophomore, he had the Crusaders in the dance, pushing Maryland to the limit. He shot 85 percent from the line, 46.7 percent from 3 and was a good big for a good defensive team. The next year, he was better, 18.4 points, 8.4 rebounds, shot 44 percent on 5.6 3s a night. Valpo went 30-7 with the No. 8 defense in the country. They were No. 31 in KenPom at the end of the regular season. They were ready to do something cool in March.

Then they caught a frenetic, weird Green Bay team. They lost in OT. The kinda cool dream was just a run to the NIT final. Then his coach left for Vandy, and he had a choice. He coulda gone most anywhere. I think Maryland was rumored. Vandy woulda worked. He could've given himself another good shot at the dance. But he was loyal in the way that makes old schoolers warm and fuzzy. Valpo promoted an assistant. A chunk of the team came back. He stayed. 

They were good the next year, but not as good. Oakland was on their level, and everyone knew one of those teams would deny the other, owing to the cruelty of March. Instead a 9-23 Milwaukee team held Valpo 13 points below the previous season low in a 43-41 loss (Oakland also got upset). His career ended in the NIT vs. Illinois. 

That's not to say the loyalty was bad. It was what it was. A really, really good player was limited by this structure. He had a chance to change, valued something more, couldn't get where he wanted, and a decorated career faded a bit with a final chapter that wasn't quite what you'd wish.

Which brings us to Daum. He's been to three tournaments. He's the ninth-leading scorer in NCAA history, and should move to eighth or seventh by year's end. That wouldn't have happened if he'd gone to his home state and brought Nebraska back to the dance, or followed his former assistant coach and formed an inside-outside death machine with Ethan Happ. If he's lucky, he'll end his career in MSG in an event people give a little lip service to. Maybe I'm in the minority for imagining how cool that could've been, but it's something to think about at least. 

[847badgerfan]

St. Mary's beat Gonzaga last night, eliminating one bubble team. OSU or IU could be the victim here. Both probably needed Gonzaga to win that one.

[medinabuckeye1]

St. Mary's beat Gonzaga last night, eliminating one bubble team. OSU or IU could be the victim here. Both probably needed Gonzaga to win that one.

I've believed since the BTT was set that the IU/tOSU loser was out.  Bid thieves like St. Mary's happen every year and the IU/tOSU loser would need a VERY soft bubble.  I just don't see it happening.  IMHO, the IU/tOSU game is for a spot in the Big Dance.  

[847badgerfan]

Could have been, but now we won't ever really know.

[bayareabadger]

Could have been, but now we won't ever really know.

Don’t the usually list the last team in, last few out?

[847badgerfan]

The committee? I don't know that. I know the "experts" do that for their own.