2020-2021 B1G Basketball Thread

[OrangeAfroMan]

Oh well.

[Kris60]

It wouldn’t be WVU if they didn’t get the best draw I can ever remember, that got even better when Illinois lost, and then crap out out in the 2nd round against an 11 seed.

Sigh.

[MaximumSam]

Re: The Big Ten - the strength of the league wasn't that they were better than everyone else, it was that they had a lot of good teams. Sparty and UCLA was a pretty even matchup, and bully for them.  But UCLA came in 4th in the PAC and Sparty came in 9th in the B1G. Does the amount of good teams skew with the stats? Perhaps, I'm no expert there. Definitely inflated the SOS, which in turn made the B1G resumes good.

[847badgerfan]

Anyone ready to hire Porter Moser yet?

[fezzador]

Anyone ready to hire Porter Moser yet?

Why risk getting hired just to be fired?

[bayareabadger]

Anyone ready to hire Porter Moser yet?

Someone should, though if he fails, the full length of his kinda boom or bust resume will be brought up. 

[ELA]

Someone should, though if he fails, the full length of his kinda boom or bust resume will be brought up.

Rick Majerus was an ass, but he was a hell of a coach, and I don't discount what he may have learned working under him in between head coaching stints.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Obviously the Big Ten hasn't shown well in this tournament... But with some of these upsets, do we really believe it's all that strong of an indictment of the league? 

I haven't watched most of them closely, except obviously the Purdue game. Credit goes to UNT's gameplan, because they did a great job keeping Purdue's bigs from establishing themselves. But beyond that, did they really "outplay" Purdue? I don't think so... I think they out shot Purdue. Purdue pulled off the "look like you forgot what time the game starts for the first 20 minutes and then come out after halftime a completely different team", and that has plagued them all year. 

UNT was 50% from 2pt and 42.9% from deep. Purdue was 41% from 2pt and 30% from deep. Purdue outrebounded UNT 39 to 32, with a massive lead in ORB of 20 compared to 8, and all other statistical categories were pretty close. 

It came down to getting the ball through the hoop, and when you have a terrible shooting day while your opponent is making everything, it's not going to end well. 

Even with UNT having the right gameplan, I'll bet if you put those two teams into a simulation, Purdue wins 8 of 10. 

[medinabuckeye1]

First round through 36 tournaments (1985-2021 skipping 2020):

• 143-1, 99.31%
• 135-9, 93.75%
• 122-22, 84.72%
• 113-31, 78.47%
• 93-51, 64.58%
• 90-54, 62.50%
• 87-57, 60.42%
• 70-74, 48.61%
• 74-70, 51.39%
• 57-87, 39.58%
• 54-90, 37.50%
• 51-93, 35.42%
• 31-113, 21.53%
• 22-122, 15.28%
• 9-135, 6.25%
• 1-143, 0.69%

[medinabuckeye1]

So, the metrics still say the Big Ten on balance was the best conference. Maybe that's because they kicked the hell out of the ACC, but those metrics likewise adjust for competition.

I assume you're using the lack of playing to expectations as some evidence of this, and in the end, I think that might be missing the forest for the trees a bit. Even though we have the adjusted numbers about how far teams will go, in the end, having more high seeds builds a mechanism to disappoint. All the success is wrapped up in smaller conferences. The second-best conference (the Big 12) lost 3 seeds in the first and second rounds and is waiting to see on OK State. I guess one could say the Pac-12 is better than we thought, but I think in the end, the Big Dance is just too jagged and weird to be a great indicator of conference strength.

The Big Ten was still, on balance, stacked. It turned around and didn't do well in the dance, but that happens. And sometimes the league ain't that strong and gets a couple of teams rolling deep into the tournament. It's just weird like that.

I get all of this and I want to point out a couple things.

First, I'm not comparing to chalk, I'm comparing to past performance of teams with those seeds. You have a good point, when comparing to chalk the high seeds are almost always going to disappoint and the low seeds are almost always going to impress.

Second, given the single elimination format of the tournament there are always going to be teams that get hot/cold and over/under perform. Looking at nine teams that should balance out. Ie, if tOSU and Purdue lose first round upsets as 2/4 seeds that is fine if MSU and Maryland go far as 11/10 seeds.

In the case of the B1G this year we saw some of that. Maryland and Rutgers winning first round games mostly made up for Ohio State and Purdue.

Based on past performance of seeds, our league should have put 6.15 teams in the R32 and we got 6 so that is only down 0.15, no big deal.

I'm anticipating that dropping off a lot in the next few rounds. Based on past performance of seeds, our league should put  3.91 teams in the S16. Welp, we've already missed that. We have none in and three playing for spots today. Best-case-scenario is that we get three which is 0.91 below expectations.

[medinabuckeye1]

Obviously the Big Ten hasn't shown well in this tournament... But with some of these upsets, do we really believe it's all that strong of an indictment of the league?

My answer is individually no but collectively yes.

So far our league has suffered six tournament losses:

• MSU lost in OT after having led by 14 and the #11 that they lost to is still playing.
• tOSU lost in OT after having led by 8 and the #15 that they lost to also beat #7 to advance to the S16.
• Purdue lost in OT.
• Illinois lost to a #8 seed that was apparently closer to their KenPom than we thought.
• #9 Wisconsin was reasonably competitive with #1 Baylor before losing.
• #10 Rutgers led nearly the entire second half including by double digits before losing by three to #2 Houston.

Three were in OT and another was by one possession. Ie, we are basically four bad bounces from flipping that script completely.

Those aren't terrible losses individually but collectively our league should have done better.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Even with UNT having the right gameplan, I'll bet if you put those two teams into a simulation, Purdue wins 8 of 10.

Every time I hear this about basketball, I feel queezy considering the exact same thing would happen in an expanded football playoff.

[medinabuckeye1]

Oral Damn Roberts

FWIW:
Oral Roberts is only the second ever #15 to advance to the second weekend and they'll have a chance to make history.

No #13 or lower has ever won a second weekend NCAA Tournament game. Three chances remain this year:

• #15 Oral Roberts if they beat #3 Arkansas. 
• #13 Ohio if they beat #5 Creighton today and #3/6 Kansas/USC.
• #14 Abilene Christian if they beat #11 UCLA today and #2/10 Alabama/Maryland. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

My answer is individually no but collectively yes.

So far our league has suffered six tournament losses:

• MSU lost in OT after having led by 14 and the #11 that they lost to is still playing.
• tOSU lost in OT after having led by 8 and the #15 that they lost to also beat #7 to advance to the S16.
• Purdue lost in OT.
• Illinois lost to a #8 seed that was apparently closer to their KenPom than we thought.
• #9 Wisconsin was reasonably competitive with #1 Baylor before losing.
• #10 Rutgers led nearly the entire second half including by double digits before losing by three to #2 Houston.

Three were in OT and another was by one possession. Ie, we are basically four bad bounces from flipping that script completely.

Those aren't terrible losses individually but collectively our league should have done better.

The only point I'd make about OSU and Purdue is that we can't use "they were in OT" and calling them bad bounces... Neither team should have been in OT against undermatched seed lines, if the seeding was anywhere near accurate. And if the seeding was accurate, Illinois was terrible.

MSU was a play-in game, so I'll give that one the bad bounce treatment. That could easily have gone the other way. Rutgers overperformed to be within 3 of Houston, so that's a positive. Wisconsin blew the doors off UNC, so that's also overperforming.

OSU and Purdue escaping round one wouldn't flip the script, unless you look at it PURELY from a W/L perspective. And I know you're more astute than that. When you're a 2 or 4 seed, you're simply supposed to win, and win handily. A close win isn't a good look at all. Sure beats a close loss though, for the fan!