2018-2019 B1G Basketball Thread

[FearlessF]

  IMHO, the IU/tOSU game is for a spot in the Big Dance.  

high stakes.  I'll be watching
Huskers/Rutgers on the other-hand.......... not so compelling 

[Brutus Buckeye]

I think that they should maybe mandate that a team needs to be at least .500 in their own Conference in order to qualify for an at large bid. 

Sorry if this has already been discussed, I haven't read the entire thread. Just sorta jumping in here. 

[FearlessF]

but, that's not fair

some programs unfairly belong to very strong basketball conferences

[Brutus Buckeye]

Yes I follow such a program, and they don't belong on any bubble.

[grillrat]

I'm not sure I can completely call it an absolute cutoff of having to be .500 in conference.  Let's say a team from the Big Ten goes 11-0 non-conference with 7 wins against top 25 teams like Duke, Kentucky, Gonzaga, Villanova, Tennessee, Florida State, and maybe some mid-major.  Then they go 9-11 in conference with all their losses coming to the top half of the league.  That would be 20-11 before the BTT and 0 quad 3/4 losses and probably a 16-11 quad 1/2 record.  I would think that is a tournament worthy team.

[ELA]

I think that is super unlikely to happen.  I'm not overly concerned about any team hovering around that .500 mark to be incredibly qualified, I just think without complete round robin schedules it's unfair to teams who get the scheduling shaft.  Indiana goes 9-11 with double plays against the top 3 or 4 teams in the league while Purdue goes 10-10, and plays those top schools once, that's kind of an arbitrary cutoff, if Indiana is otherwise equally or even more qualified.  Generally a 10-10 team and a 9-11 team are going to be fairly equal, and schedule most likely determines who winds up with each record.

[bayareabadger]

but, that's not fair

some programs unfairly belong to very strong basketball conferences

If one made this cutoff, you have two outcomes. You’ll create a little vacuum with those last few spots.
1. You let in a batch of high-win mid-majors. Kind of ignoring the good win/bad loss metrics of the day. I’d be fine with this, but it to a degree some argue it reduces quality to a degree.
2. You end up with some kinda weird Big conference schools in there. 
For example, 16-15 South Carolina becomes an option because of a bad non-conference run. Or some Pac12 teams/Meh Big East teams become tastier. Is that good? 
If the first option happens, fine by me. Some teams will get sorta screwed. Same as now, just different teams. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

The tournament is too big. 

A team like IU or OSU this year is probably as worthy as any of the other teams in the 64th-72nd range.

But rather than argue over whether they're deserving, why not just restrict the field so they're not even in the discussion? 

[medinabuckeye1]

I think that they should maybe mandate that a team needs to be at least .500 in their own Conference in order to qualify for an at large bid.
Sorry if this has already been discussed, I haven't read the entire thread. Just sorta jumping in here.

but, that's not fair
some programs unfairly belong to very strong basketball conferences

Yes I follow such a program, and they don't belong on any bubble.

I strongly disagree with you @Brutus Buckeye for the reason stated by @FearlessF but I want to expand on it a bit.  
First, the NCAA Tournament already favors teams from crappy conferences because all they have to do is to win their crappy conference tournament.  In many cases that is substantially easier than compiling a decent record in a conference like ours.  
I'll use Gonzaga's West Coast Conference as an example.  Per the net rankings, the WCC members are ranked:

• #2 Gonzaga
• #34 St. Mary's
• #72 San Francisco
• #85 BYU
• #99 San Diego
• #142 Loyola Marymount
• #167 Peperdine
• #183 Santa Clara
• #213 Pacific
• #326 Portland

Going .500 in that conference would be easy even for a bad B1G team.  

Here are the NET rankings for the B1G:

• #8 MSU
• #10 M
• #12 PU
• #15 UW
• #26 UMD
• #42 IA
• #49 PSU
• #51 IU
• #52 UNL
• #55 tOSU
• #56 MN
• #88 NU
• #100 RU
• #105 IL

It would be ridiculously unfair to major conference teams to require them to achieve a .500 ranking in a gauntlet like the B1G.  Note that half of the WCC's teams would be the worst team in the B1G by far.  Five of the B1G's 14 teams would be at least the second best team in the WCC.  

One can criticize MSU's two losses to #51 IU, but realize that in their entire conference slate Gonzaga only played three games against teams as good as Indiana, their three games against Saint Mary's.  Gonzaga went 2-1.  In games against teams at least that good the Spartans went:

• 2-0 against #10 M
• 1-1 against #12 PU
• 1-0 against #15 UW
• 1-0 against #26 UMD
• 2-0 against #42 IA
• 1-0 against #49 PSU
• 0-2 against #42 IU

Another reason is unbalanced schedules.  In the B1G, of course, we play 20 games against 13 teams meaning that we play:

• Three on the road only
• Three at home only, and
• Seven both home and road.  

This can be a humongous difference.  Consider two hypothetical league schedules that Ohio State could have been assigned:
Hypothetical Schedule #1:

• MSU, M, and PU at home only 
• UW, UMD, and IA on the road only 
• The rest (PSU, IU, UNL, MN, NU, RU, and IL) twice each

Hypothetical Schedule #2:

• NU, RU, and IL on the road only
• MN, UNL, and IU at home only
• The rest (MSU, M, PU, UW, UMD, IA, PSU) twice each

A team that goes .500 on hypothetical schedule #2 should absolutely be in the tournament.  A team that goes .500 against hypothetical schedule #1 is a different thing entirely.  

A team should absolutely not be excluded from the tournament based on having a tougher league schedule.  The teams in the tournament should be the auto-qualifiers (I only reluctantly accept that) and the best remaining teams in the country as at-large representatives.  

Finally, for anyone who thinks the NCAA does not favor crappy conference teams, please note that major conference teams have won six of the last seven tournaments played to determine the best team left out of the NCAA.  That includes two B1G teams (PSU in 2018 and MN in 2014).  Prior to that minor conferences won a couple and then we are right back to major conference teams again.  

NIT winners:

• PSU in 2018
• TCU in 2017
• George Washington in 2016
• Stanford in 2015
• Minnesota in 2014
• Baylor in 2013
• Stanford in 2012
• Wichita State in 2011
• Dayton in 2010
• PSU in 2009
• tOSU in 2008
• WVU in 2007
• USCe in 2006
• USCe in 2005
• Michigan in 2004

Note that the best team left out of the NCAA tournament has been from our league five times in the last 15 years.  There is no reason whatsoever to make this disparity even worse such that it favors teams from crappy conferences more than it already does.  

[medinabuckeye1]

The tournament is too big.

A team like IU or OSU this year is probably as worthy as any of the other teams in the 64th-72nd range.

But rather than argue over whether they're deserving, why not just restrict the field so they're not even in the discussion?

I'd be fine with shrinking the size of the tournament but only if you reduced the number of crappy conference champions.  
As it is now every conference tournament winner gets a bid no matter how bad they and their conference are.  If you are going to do that then I think you should have enough at-large teams such that the disparity between the worst few at-large teams and the worst few auto-bid teams isn't too ridiculously large.  IMHO, that disparity is already too large.  

[MaximumSam]

The tournament is too big.

A team like IU or OSU this year is probably as worthy as any of the other teams in the 64th-72nd range.

But rather than argue over whether they're deserving, why not just restrict the field so they're not even in the discussion?

You sir hate America

[bayareabadger]

The tournament is too big.

A team like IU or OSU this year is probably as worthy as any of the other teams in the 64th-72nd range.

But rather than argue over whether they're deserving, why not just restrict the field so they're not even in the discussion?

The tournament is probably one of the best things in sports. Why would you change it to say, the teams at the edge are not good? If they’re not good, they lose. 
Erring toward more rather than less is fine. The question of the teams at the edge will always be there. The last 48-team field had a 16-11 at-large team. The last 32-teamer was very exclusive, probably more than we’d like. 
What makes this great is the access, the dreams, the teams that have no business on national tv against powerhouses but are anyway. Extra exclusivity “raise” the quality is just plain boring. 

[bayareabadger]

I'd be fine with shrinking the size of the tournament but only if you reduced the number of crappy conference champions.  
As it is now every conference tournament winner gets a bid no matter how bad they and their conference are.  If you are going to do that then I think you should have enough at-large teams such that the disparity between the worst few at-large teams and the worst few auto-bid teams isn't too ridiculously large.  IMHO, that disparity is already too large.  

A tournament without crappy conference champions isn’t an event. 
This is not about letting in all the right teams. If it was, it would be not be what it is. Just pick the four best teams and have one weekend. Blech. 

[FearlessF]

I would be fine with restricting the tourney to 32 teams

but, I'm fine with it the way it is

it's only basketball

I just hate the idear of comparing the basketball tourney to the football playoff - it is not the same