2020-2021 B1G Basketball Thread

[OrangeAfroMan]

They didn't?

The first tournament the Bulldogs ever made was in 1995. The second was in 1999. I'm looking at a couple reference sites, they seem to say Gonzaga was one of the last 8 teams in the field?

Yes, I found conflicting sites.  Ugh.
Had to actually see the evidence on youtube.  

[OrangeAfroMan]

Importance is in the eye of the beholder.

If you are a Midwestern guy who cares more about the MAC than the SEC, then in your world the MAC CCG is more important than the SEC CCG.

My problem with how things are now is that the NCAA or whoever perpetuates this lie that the MAC champ is eligible (and thus, is safe to yearn for) the national championship.  But in reality, they're not. 

All I want to happen is for that lie to end.

Any expansion to the playoff (or the current model as-is) including a 'best' G5 team continues to perpetuate the lie.  There's no need.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

To me it boils down to college football is way too far on the side of actually letting the best team be national champion, and college basketball being way too far on the entertainment side.

Where you fall, is how important each is to you. And I think the end result of basketball is closer to producing a true champion than college football is to producing an entertaining race to get there. At least when it was two teams, there was entertainment in the fact that one fluky loss could end you, and a team that wasn't actually the best, could get enough breaks to get there. Going from 2 to 4 has eliminated those things more or less, and has sucked too much of the entertainment out of the national championship chase.

I think we could comfortably go to 8, and I still don't think you would see a bunch of fluky national champions.  How many upsets have we seen in the CFP? Let alone a team pulling off three of those in a row. I think that would strike a good balance between entertainment and allowing the best team to win it.  A 5-1-2 model.  I kind of like the idea of working in some sort of group of five tournament to determine who gets that one bed, even if that is not plausible. Maybe you get rid of their conference championship games, and have the two best group of five teams play each other during championship weekend?

So let's look at NCAA tournament history.

Since the move to a 64 [65 or 68] team field, we have 35 tournaments. 

There are >300 teams in CFB. If you assume that the level of "elite" teams is anywhere near the same ratio as it is in CFB, where we're letting 4 teams into the playoff as "elite", somewhere around the 12 mark would make sense as "legitimate" champs per OAM, right?

So, here's what we've got:

• 22 were won by the #1 seed
• 5 were won by the #2 seed
• 4 were won by the #3 seed
• 1 was won by the #4 seed (1997)
• 1 was won by the #6 seed (1988)
• 1 was won by the #7 seed (2014)
• 1 was won by the #8 seed (1984)

88% of the tournaments were won by the top 3 seeds. Two of the three most egregious examples of "unworthy" champs were over 30 years ago. 

In the 2014 tournament, UConn as the 7 seed beat the 10, the 2, the 3, and the 4 to make the Final Four. Not exactly a "broken bracket" except not facing the #1 in the Elite Eight. UConn then beat a 1 seed (Florida) to advance to the title game, where they faced 8th-seeded Kentucky. So even in the only recent year that an "unworthy" team won it, it wasn't because they faced a road to the title like Houston would have had this year. And it's not like UConn was a terrible team. They'd flirted with top-10 rankings early in the season, faced a couple losses to fall out of the ranking, but finished (pre-tourney) at 18th in the AP and 20th in the Coaches poll. 


I think the system is doing a pretty damned good job of crowning a champion. Is it the "best" team? We don't know, but it's not like we're regularly seeing unworthy teams win it. 

[OrangeAfroMan]

Why even have an occasional 18th-ranked team win the national championship?  What's the argument FOR that?  
3rd in their conference
Never ranked above 9th
Lost to UL 3 times
.
And that's the team we're putting down in the annals as the season's champion.  Awesome.

[Brutus Buckeye]

Rational point.
Rational point
Rational point.
WTF?  Being against an expanded playoff is now woke?  Says who?  Go bitch and moan and boycott over a guy kneeling during a song, snowflake.

I didn't mention anything at all about playoff expansion or National Anthem protests in my post, you maniac. 

Switch to decaf. Or layoff the Meth. 

[MrNubbz]

Both? - that's a tall order

[MrNubbz]

The CFP is irrelevant to a Purdue fan. I care about it in the same way a Camry owner cares about the Nurburgring lap times of Ferraris and Lambos...

Ya well us Corolla owners do

[MrNubbz]

Wow. Just wow.

Well holy hell

What'd I miss besides the Game?
Edit:just saw it,dayum

[betarhoalphadelta]

Why even have an occasional 18th-ranked team win the national championship?  What's the argument FOR that? 
3rd in their conference
Never ranked above 9th
Lost to UL 3 times
.
And that's the team we're putting down in the annals as the season's champion.  Awesome.

The argument for it is that the NCAA Tournament has a clear and objective path to inclusion in the field--winning your conference--and everyone else has to win the beauty pageant to get a bid. 

Whereas in football you can lose, miss your conference championship, and get put into the field over a team that actually won something who is excluded. 

When someone takes that and says "yeah, well, the NCAA tournament is all about excitement and not crowning a champion" I will retort and say the NCAA tournament does BOTH well. If, in the last 30 years, that UConn team is the worst example of a champion, I'd say they're doing a pretty good job. 

[medinabuckeye1]

So let's look at NCAA tournament history.

Since the move to a 64 [65 or 68] team field, we have 35 tournaments.

So, here's what we've got:

• 22 were won by the #1 seed
• 5 were won by the #2 seed
• 4 were won by the #3 seed
• 1 was won by the #4 seed (1997)
• 1 was won by the #6 seed (1988)
• 1 was won by the #7 seed (2014)
• 1 was won by the #8 seed (1984)

88% of the tournaments were won by the top 3 seeds. Two of the three most egregious examples of "unworthy" champs were over 30 years ago.

Tonight's CG will be won by a #1 seed so now it is 23 of 36 (64%) won by #1 seeds and 32 of 36 (89%) won by top-3 seeds. The other four are the four for which you included years, one each by a #4, #6, #7, and #8 seed.

[OrangeAfroMan]

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.

[betarhoalphadelta]

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.

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 (is anybody) 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.

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?

[medinabuckeye1]

Through 36 tournaments this is how each seed has done at reaching each level:

This is the percentage of the total of that seed to reach that level, not the percentage of those that got there to win, example:

• 99.31% of all #1 seeds have won their R64 game.  
• 85.42% of all #1 seeds have won their R32 game to get to the S16.
•  . . .
• 15.97% of all #1 seeds have won the NC. 

Here are the records by round by seed:

[utee94]

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.

There are 350 schools that play D1 basketball.

There are only 130 schools that play FBS football.

That must be factored in as well.

A top 4 team in a football tournament is roughly equivalent to a top 12 team in the basketball tourney, so the appropriate comparison is to all 3-seeds and better.