2018-2019 B1G Basketball Thread

[medinabuckeye1]

Is that always the case? Fees like a 4 doesn’t get much say.
Anyway, seems like an unusual concentration of top seeds in the upper South and Eastern Midwest. They’ve got a billion options for the Columbus and Columbia sites, Many of whose best alternatives are Iowa. Then Tulsa has its two 3s. So you have Jacksonville, which likely takes runoff Southern schools, so it’s Hartford and two to the west.
It probably also hurts balance that your best West schools are Gonzaga, Nevada and Utah State.

It is always that way because there are always too many western sites.  It is worse than normal this year because the PAC is horrible which means that there are even less western teams than usual.  

[medinabuckeye1]

It is always that way because there are always too many western sites.  It is worse than normal this year because the PAC is horrible which means that there are even less western teams than usual.  

To expand on this:  Here is a map of this year's eight NCAA first/second round sites
a map of this year's eight NCAA first/second round sites.  
Note that there are two in the Rockies or West of the Rockies (SLC and San Jose).  Here are the best teams from that area (per Lunardi):

• #1 Gonzaga
• #7 Nevada
• #8 Washington

Only three of the top 32 teams or 9.4% are located in or West of the Rockies.  Two of the eight sites, however, makes up 25% of the available sites and consequently a slew of Eastern #4 and #5 seeds are going to get sent out west.  Per Lunardi:

• #4 FSU has to travel all the way to SLC
• #4 Wisconsin has to travel all the way to San Jose
• #4 Kansas State has to travel all the way to San Jose
• #5 Auburn has to travel all the way to SLC
• #5 MissSt has to travel all the way to San Jose
• #5 VaTech has to travel all the way to San Jose

Maybe someday the NCAA will learn from this.  In most years it works out such that there should only be ONE first/second round site in or west of the Rockies.  They should do it by timezone:  

• The Mountain and Pacific timezones should get a combined one site per year. 
• The Central timezone should get two or three sites per year.  
• The Eastern timezone should get four or five sites per year.  
• In the years in which the Central timezone gets three sites, the Mountain/Pacific site should be in the Pacific timezone and in years in which the Central timezone gets two sites the Mountain/Pacific site should be in the Mountain timezone.  

[medinabuckeye1]

To expand on this:  Here is a map of this year's eight NCAA first/second round sites
a map of this year's eight NCAA first/second round sites.  

Three maps:

• The eight first/second round sites.  
• The top-8 teams per Lunardi (#1 and #2 seeds).  
• The next-8 teams per Lunardi (#3 and #4 seeds).  

When you open those three maps the ridiculous overage of Western NCAA sites becomes obvious if it wasn't already.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Does Ohio State need to pull off an upset today or are they already safely in the tournament?

[bayareabadger]

Does Ohio State need to pull off an upset today or are they already safely in the tournament?

 I think they’re in barring a rash of bid stealers. 
Maybe if they lose by 45 people will feel somewhat different.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to trim the tournament down to 32 or even 16 teams....that's fine.  But the way that I see it right now....the best team in the nation should be able to beat these teams that wouldn't even be invited to the hypothetical trimmed down tournament.

Except there's never been such a thing as a 100.0% chance of victory.

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I don't like about the brackets this year is that there are few options for the 4/5 seeds. Outside of the Hartford pod, all the other ones head West.

There are too many games held in the west. Even ignoring the implosion of the PAC, the vast majority of basketball is played east of the Mississippi, but the regionals aren't proportioned that way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, does anyone have any thoughts on the NC State SOS thing? It's either a call to arms or statistical lesson.

Cliff's Notes on what you mean, please.

[medinabuckeye1]

I'll start with this. I wrote that last post on my phone. I didn't have the time to give it the fullest attention.
When I called it a half truth, I mean this.
As you said, a better team has a harder road. That's true. It plays tougher opponents.
But there's the other side of the coin. A small conference team winning a great proportion of its games often means nothing. The teams have no say over conference opponents. They can try to game non-conference opponents, but building those up without a national brand isn't easy. Back in the day, Memphis and Gonzaga would play each other when more traditional powers wouldn't. Everything comes down to a single-elimination tournament.
Can we at least agree that everything coming down to a three-day stretch is it's own kind of difficulty? Either that or winning 30 games?
When one set of teams gets a lot of leeway and the other doesn't, people won't like it. I don't contest that it's harder to win seven games in the Big 10 than 13 in the Patriot League. But there is a position where two more Big 10 wins count and 16 in the Pat league don't.
In aggregate, the smaller schools are favored. On an individual level, you'd rather be a team that could dance with 13 losses than head to the NIT with 3, even if the schedule is a different beast.
Overall, the structure of college sports works against small schools. This we know. And the way to get an at large berth is built on a certain resource, and small schools have relatively little access to it. They have a different brand of access. One with less margin for error and a crueler point when it is lost.
I see where you're coming from, and outside a few of the more snarly-parts generally agree. I hope you see a few of my points as somewhat solid, even if we don't fully agree.

I get where you are coming from and I don't think we are THAT far apart.  
I get that a crappy-conference team winning a great proportion of its games often means nothing.  I don't see anything wrong with that because it SHOULD mean nothing.  Nobody would give a fringe NCAA team from a major conference any credit for winning games against HS teams, we shouldn't give crappy-conference teams credit for winning games against teams that aren't a challenge.  
Sure, we can agree that everything coming down to a three-day stretch is its own kind of difficult.  It REALLY sucks when you actually ARE the tallest midget but you have one bad game and lose the tallest midget competition (ie, crappy-conference championship) because then you are out.  On that subject, I think that @MichiFan87 's suggestion that 1-bid leagues should eliminate their tournaments has some merit.  
"The structure of college sports works against small schools", I agree if you are talking money.  This isn't a pro league where we can equalize the money.  Fans and alums spend and some schools do better in that arena than others.  If your school is lucky enough to count T. Boone Pickens (OkSU) or Phil Knight (Oregon) as an alum then you can build facilities and whatnot that most schools can only dream of.  Outside of that, if you are in a conference that rakes in TV money then you have at least enough $$$$ to keep up.  If you don't have either of those things well then you are probably playing BB in a glorified HS Gym.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Regarding the argument about mid-majors' at-large chances compared to mediocre power-conference schools, the reality is that nobody is forcing those conferences to have a conference tournament. I really don't understand why some of them don't do away with them. The one upside is if the best team doesn't actually win the league in the regular season (no good examples in recent years but it happens occasionally) due to an inbalanced schedule, a stronger non-conference showing, or something else, but generally it results in a worse team representing the conference.

Conversely, South Dakota State and Hofstra would've been dangerous teams in the tournament and could make runs in the NIT. No disrespect to North Dakota State and Northeastern, but they're just not as good.... A few years ago was perhaps the most infamous example when Holy Cross won the Patriot League as a #8 seed. It just doesn't make sense that a team can hypothetically go 4-31 and make the NCAA tournament because they won those last 4 games. I know some leagues don't include everyone in their conference tournaments (the Ivy League even after it finally gave in to having one still limits it to their top 4), but most of them do.

I can think of another advantage, but it depends on the situation of the conference:
Looking at the MAC, they have one and only one team that could get an at-large bid.  Buffalo is #15 in the NET and they are going to the NCAA Tournament no matter what.  Buffalo plays CMU in a MAC semi-final today and the winner will play either UNI or BGSU tomorrow.  The advantage of the tournament for the MAC is that they *MIGHT* get a second team in the NCAA.  If Buffalo wins they will obviously be the only MAC team in the NCAA but if CMU, NIU, or BGSU manages to win it then the MAC will get two.  
I think your point is interesting though because for a league with zero teams that could get an at-large bid I think you are right.  For them the tournament generally just creates the possibility that their best team will miss out on the NCAA while some also-ran gets slaughtered.  

[MaximumSam]

That was an interesting series.  Nick Ward clips Wood in the head with an elbow while trying to clear space.  Woods falls down in pain, the ball gets moved around and MSU gets an open 3.  The refs then go to the monitor and determine there was a flagrant foul.  But MSU keeps the points.  Didn't realize that was the rule.

[MarqHusker]

I'm not a fan of that flagrant call, stipulating there s good reason to call it on flying elbows.  That's not what I saw.  Is that rule an absolute flagrant when there s contact like that?

[MaximumSam]

I'm not a fan of that flagrant call, stipulating there s good reason to call it on flying elbows.  That's not what I saw.  Is that rule an absolute flagrant when there s contact like that?

I believe the rule is any illegal contact with the elbow to an area above the shoulders (i.e. the head) is supposed to be a flagrant foul.

[ELA]

Part of the reason everyone just shoots threes, you don't get room inside to do anything, then you get a flagrant.

Nothing about the first half went according to the scouting reports.  The best players on both sides were largely invisible, OSU was actually making threes.

This is a game I'd prefer Beilein was coaching OSU, Wesson would have sat for the remainder of the half, rather than his coach trusting him not to pick up #3.  That was huge.

OSU is defending MSU better than anyone I've seen all year.  They are getting after it.  Good scouting, good execution, good effort.  MSU has gotten some junk to drop.