2020-2021 B1G Basketball Thread

[FearlessF]

As judged by the committee.

Admittedly, I trust them more than the pollsters, but we don't know what goes on in the room where they decide who gets in... They could be reading chicken entrails for all we know.

In 2014, there was a legitimate debate as to who the #4 team should be. You had two co-champions from the B12 because they didn't have a CCG, and you had 12-1 B1G champ OSU who was on their 3rd-string QB who had started all of one game. Then that 4-seed won it all.

Heck, if the committee knows who the best teams are, why has the #1 seed only won 28% of the CFPs we've played--a number equal to the number of #4 seeds who have won it?

so, in hoops there are 4) #1 seeds.
How many times has the #1 overall seed won in basketball?

will the Zags win it tonight?

[FearlessF]

That all sounds great, if you don't multiply by 4, like you should.  I don't find the fact that the basketball national champion has been a top 12 team 90% of the time impressive at all.

Yes, I prefer the football method of the NC being a top 4 team 100% of the time. 
I'm surprised at how so few (if anybody) are advocating for an expanded 8-team CFP which includes GULP the top 8 teams.  Even that would be far superior to basektball's system, in terms of competition.

so, you'd be fine with a basketball tournament simply being a final 4 with the top 4 overall seeds?

I'd be ok with that.  That would be similar to football

[utee94]

so, you'd be fine with a basketball tournament simply being a final 4 with the top 4 overall seeds?

I'd be ok with that.  That would be similar to football

That wouldn't be similar to the football tournament at all.

A top 4 in football is like a top 11-12 in basketball.  To get it to the "top 4 team basketball team equivalent" in football, you'd only have one football team in the tourney.  Maybe 1.3 teams, if you don't want to round.

So I guess you'd have Alabama versus the best 27 players on Clemson's team.

[betarhoalphadelta]

so, in hoops there are 4) #1 seeds.
How many times has the #1 overall seed won in basketball?

will the Zags win it tonight?

Not sure how many times the overall #1 seed has won it all, nor do I care.

My argument is that we have, whether in football or basketball, very limited information. Even if we are supposed to be "experts", like the CFP committee or the tournament selection committee. They are not infallible and should not be treated as such.

If they were infallible, we wouldn't have a playoff at all. The committees could just decide, after the season has concluded, who the best team is and crown them. That's how we used to do it in CFB, except "the committee" was pollsters. 

OAM said since the CFP, we know that national champion will come from the top 4 teams in the nation. I split hairs on that because we only know that the champion will come from the 4 teams the committee has told us are the top 4 teams, and I suggest they're not infallible because the #1 seed has won the exact same number of CFP championships as the #4 seed. It is very limited sample size, so this could just be a statistical oddity and not mean anything. But you can also argue if the difference in quality is close enough that the #4 team is winning at that rate, the #5 team is just as close. 

[medinabuckeye1]

Not sure how many times the overall #1 seed has won it all, nor do I care.

My argument is that we have, whether in football or basketball, very limited information. Even if we are supposed to be "experts", like the CFP committee or the tournament selection committee. They are not infallible and should not be treated as such.

If they were infallible, we wouldn't have a playoff at all. The committees could just decide, after the season has concluded, who the best team is and crown them. That's how we used to do it in CFB, except "the committee" was pollsters.

OAM said since the CFP, we know that national champion will come from the top 4 teams in the nation. I split hairs on that because we only know that the champion will come from the 4 teams the committee has told us are the top 4 teams, and I suggest they're not infallible because the #1 seed has won the exact same number of CFP championships as the #4 seed. It is very limited sample size, so this could just be a statistical oddity and not mean anything. But you can also argue if the difference in quality is close enough that the #4 team is winning at that rate, the #5 team is just as close.

Maybe, maybe not. Here is an example from BB:

The #9 seed has a slightly better than .500 record against the #8 seed in first round games (74-70). One could look at that and conclude that the committee is clueless because their superior #8 seeds haven't even won 50% of the time against their inferior #9 seeds.

I would point out, however, that the #8 seeds do vastly better the rest of the way:
In R32 games:

• #8's are 14-56 (.200) against #1's
• #9's are 6-67 (.083) against #1's and 7-67 (.095) overall

S16 games:

• #8's are 8-6
• #9's are 4-3, same % but half the attempts.

E8 games:

• #8's are 5-3 (.625)
• #9's are 1-3 (.250)

F4 games:

• #8's are 3-2 (.600)
• #9's are 0-1

Championship games:

• #8's are 1-2
• #9's have never made it.

[FearlessF]

That wouldn't be similar to the football tournament at all.

A top 4 in football is like a top 11-12 in basketball.  To get it to the "top 4 team basketball team equivalent" in football, you'd only have one football team in the tourney.  Maybe 1.3 teams, if you don't want to round.

So I guess you'd have Alabama versus the best 27 players on Clemson's team.

go ahead and add the football teams outside the Power 5 conferences.  That's all that happens in basketball.

Bama, Clemson, Ohio st., Oklahoma, and Notre Dame are still going to be the top 5 year in and year out.  Harvard's football team isn't going to be in the top for anymore likely than Harvard's basketball team is going to be a #1 seed.

[utee94]

go ahead and add the football teams outside the Power 5 conferences.  That's all that happens in basketball.

Bama, Clemson, Ohio st., Oklahoma, and Notre Dame are still going to be the top 5 year in and year out.  Harvard's football team isn't going to be in the top for anymore likely than Harvard's basketball team is going to be a #1 seed.

I did.  There are 130 FBS schools in football.

There are 350 D1 basketball schools.  Almost 3x as many.

So you have to compare a top 4 in football, to around a top 12 in basketball.

[FearlessF]

well, you can, but the top 4 is the top 4, regardless of how many teams

if football had 350 schools, Bama would still be in the top 4, regardless

[utee94]

well, you can, but the top 4 is the top 4, regardless of how many teams

if football had 350 schools, Bama would still be in the top 4, regardless

You're making an adequate argument for having a ZERO team football tournament, which is fine with me.  Go back to the old bowl system and call it a day.

[FearlessF]

fine by me

it would also be fine by me to have a 4 team basketball playoff similar to football

if that's what Orangeman wants to assure s cinderella doesn't sneak in with a couple upsets

any team outside the top 20 in football or basketball really isn't relevant to the national championship award 

[utee94]

fine by me

it would also be fine by me to have a 4 team basketball playoff similar to football

if that's what Orangeman wants to assure s cinderella doesn't sneak in with a couple upsets

any team outside the top 20 in football or basketball really isn't relevant to the national championship award

I'd say any team outside the top 6 or 8 in football isn't legitimately going to challenge for the NC.

And the numbers posted on this thread suggest that ALMOST any team outside the top 12 in basketball isn't legitimately going to challenge for the NC, either. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Maybe, maybe not. Here is an example from BB:

The #9 seed has a slightly better than .500 record against the #8 seed in first round games (74-70). One could look at that and conclude that the committee is clueless because their superior #8 seeds haven't even won 50% of the time against their inferior #9 seeds.

I would point out, however, that the #8 seeds do vastly better the rest of the way:

True. I'm not saying seeding doesn't work at all. You should expect better seeds to be superior teams. I think some of those #9 results fall victim to the same complaint that my cherry-picking of #4 in the CFP winning it all compared to #1 has--small sample size. 

My argument isn't really about seeding at all--it's about equity. I don't think the CFP is a good process for selecting the field, nor do I think it does anything more than the polls or BCS to create a "real" champion. It's just a larger beauty pageant than what came before it. 

But if I can sow doubt that the CFP committee consistently picks the best 4 teams, and can use the argument that their consensus worst team of the 4 wins the whole dang thing as often as their consensus best team, I'll use that limited sample size to make my point 

go ahead and add the football teams outside the Power 5 conferences.  That's all that happens in basketball.

Bama, Clemson, Ohio st., Oklahoma, and Notre Dame are still going to be the top 5 year in and year out.  Harvard's football team isn't going to be in the top for anymore likely than Harvard's basketball team is going to be a #1 seed.

Well, that's not ALL that happens in basketball. Half the field is auto-bids, mostly teams that have absolutely zero shot to win it, but the other half of the field is at-large selections. IIRC there are around 33 conferences, which would mean that 35 teams are at-large selections. That's a much bigger number than in football, even proportionately to the size of the sport. 

The difference is that teams have an objective path to getting into the tournament in basketball, whereas in football teams have to both perform on the field and hope that performance is enough to win a beauty pageant that nobody has explained the clear rules to, but always seem to favor the helmets.

[FearlessF]

might not be clear rules to the beauty pageant, but programs at that level have a decent idea of what they need to do on the field.

If they are in doubt they can upgrade their non-con schedule

and yes they favor helmets.  in 2008 when Dabo arrived at Clemson, the Tigers were not cornsidered a helmet.  They are today, so there is also a path to obtain helmet status.

It's earned on the field of play.

[847badgerfan]

might not be clear rules to the beauty pageant, but programs at that level have a decent idea of what they need to do on the field.

If they are in doubt they can upgrade their non-con schedule

and yes they favor helmets.  in 2008 when Dabo arrived at Clemson, the Tigers were not cornsidered a helmet.  They are today, so there is also a path to obtain helmet status.

It's earned on the field of play.

No guarantee Clemson remains what it is now when Dabo leaves. They are just the latest shiny new toy.