2020-2021 B1G Basketball Thread

[OrangeAfroMan]

I just quibble with your "undefeated team of greatness" comment about Gonzaga.



What makes 2020 Gonzaga any more special than 2017 UCF?

Yeah.
I get it.
The "undefeated team of greatness" was tongue-in-cheek, akin to 2017 UCF.  

I think we just sarcasmed 360 degrees.

[OrangeAfroMan]

the same thing happens in a single game elimination 4-team tournament in football

football has already copied this

It's trying to, that's for sure.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I will leave the joke making to someone else, and instead point this out. This system, for all its many flaws ended with the two best teams, based on the full season, playing against each other. Then one of them won.

there are other outcomes you can complain about, but this season’s outcome is literally on track with how the more selective system send it. This is just about no way it’s focused on the “hot” team.

Go back and tell us how many times the top 2 seeds ended up in the final.

[medinabuckeye1]

Go back and tell us how many times the top 2 seeds ended up in the final.

I generally agree with you, but the CG participants are almost always REALLY good teams. Since expansion (36 tournaments) they have been:

• 37 #1 seeds, 51.4%
• 12 #2 seeds, 16.7%, cumulatively 68%
• 11 #3 seeds, 15.3%, cumulatively 83%
• 3 #4 seeds, 4.2%, cumulatively 87.5%
• 3 #5 seeds, 4.2%, cumulatively 91.7%
• 2 #6 seeds, 2.8%, cumulatively 94.4%
• 1 #7 seed, 1.4%, cumulatively 95.8%
• 3 #8 seeds, 4.2%, cumulatively 100%

While I generally agree with you that we don't need tallest midget crap league champs, as a practical matter they haven't been a factor in BB despite 36 years of opportunity.

Note:

• No 16 seed has ever made the second weekend.
• No 13 or below has ever won a second weekend game.
• No 12 or below has ever made the third weekend.
• No 9 or below has ever made the CG.

[medinabuckeye1]

When it comes to actually winning the tournament, the highly seeded teams are even more dominant:

• #1's have won 23 of 36 tournaments, 63.9%
• #2's have won 5 of 36 tournaments, 13.9%, cumulatively 77.8%
• #3's have won 4 of 36 tournaments, 11.1%, cumulatively 88.9%
• #4's, #6's, #7's, and #8's have won 1 of 36 tournaments each, 2.8% each.

[bayareabadger]

Go back and tell us how many times the top 2 seeds ended up in the final.

You were. It talking about all those times. You were talking about this time. 

And shoot, if you go back to the old way where one loss sinks you, as Medina pointed out, the chance of the “best” team making it goes down to a degree. Just different flavors of random. 

(I have something longer I aim to say off something Median posted, but am tied up at work at the moment)

[OrangeAfroMan]

I'd think we'd all embrace 'different flavors of random' with Bama and Clemson around.

[OrangeAfroMan]

When it comes to actually winning the tournament, the highly seeded teams are even more dominant:

• #1's have won 23 of 36 tournaments, 63.9%
• #2's have won 5 of 36 tournaments, 13.9%, cumulatively 77.8%
• #3's have won 4 of 36 tournaments, 11.1%, cumulatively 88.9%
• #4's, #6's, #7's, and #8's have won 1 of 36 tournaments each, 2.8% each.

So technically, every NC has been from the top half of the seedings. 
I wonder how long it would take for that to remain true in a 128-team tournament.  I have no doubt that in 1,000 years, we'd have had a 64-seed or two win it all. 

[medinabuckeye1]

So technically, every NC has been from the top half of the seedings. 
I wonder how long it would take for that to remain true in a 128-team tournament.  I have no doubt that in 1,000 years, we'd have had a 64-seed or two win it all.

Honestly, I doubt it. As I pointed out above, no 13 seed or below has ever won a second weekend game. Eventually, I'm sure that will happen probably because either:

• A 13 will get there and knock off a #8 or #9 that either took out #1 or took out a #16 that did, or
• A 14 will take out a 2, 7, or 10, or
• A 15 will take out a 3, 6, or 11, or
• A 14 and 15 will both make it to the same S16 game and one of them will have to win. Two #15's and two #14's have made it to the S16 so given enough chances eventually we'll see a 14/15 S16 match-up. *

That said, making the E8 is not the same thing as winning the tournament. In theory it is half way there but in practice the games tend to get tougher not easier. 11's have made the F4 but they have never even made it to the CG, let alone won it.


In 36 years there have been 144 of each seed so there have been 576 #13-#16 seeds and they are 0-576 at making the E8. Maybe in another 36 years one or a few will make the E8, so what. They still won't be National Champions.


Edit to fix math on 14/15 matchup.
*Oops!

I made a mistake. There haven't been 36 14's and 15's there have been 36 tournaments so 144 of each seed. Thus two of each (14's and 15's) to make the S16 so that is 1.39% so if I have the math right this time there is a 0.02% chance of both the #14 and the #15 making the same S16 game. Ie, it should happen once every 5,184 opportunities and there are four opportunities every year so it should happen once every 1 296 years.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Honestly, I doubt it. As I pointed out above, no 13 seed or below has ever won a second weekend game. Eventually, I'm sure that will happen probably because either:

Note: OAM was talking about *if* it were expanded to 128 teams...

Hence the 13-16 seeds wouldn't be tall midgets, they'd be short P5 teams.

[bayareabadger]

One fact that gets VERY little attention is that expanding the playoff actually makes it LESS likely that a non Helmet (or at least near-helmet) team will win the NC.

Look at the BYU example. We all know that their NC was a ridiculous joke, but they have that trophy in their case. It took a lot of luck and a bunch of clueless poll voters, but it happened.

So, I think this kind of cuts to the crux of it. 

The old system chase the undefeated-est team, which meant randomness abounds. Is relying on UCLA upsetting USC on the season's final week to swing a season that much different than a 13 upsetting a 4? Either one sacrifices some degree of finding "the best" for entertainment. Honestly, a tournament is more equitable because the ground rules are simpler. Win the games in front of you. CFB's old system couldn't even codify that. 

And the idea of letting in the one small conference school isn't to make it more likely they'll win a title. It's to give them the ability to, even if that's just proof they never will. Sixteen seeds never beat one seeds, but there's a value in being there. There's a value in playing it out for everyone involved. 

(OAM's 9-7 worries are interesting, but not all that actually concerning. In the NFL, the gap from the third-best team to the 13th best team is not unbelievably wide. In CFB, it very much is. And it's not like basketball, where the right two players and a hot shooting night can swing things. Football is wonky, and if anything, we've had the opposite problem)

Anyway, I don't know if a bigger playoff is the answer. I know the old system would likely be untenable in the modern landscape. But some of the concerns strike me as conflicting laments. 

[medinabuckeye1]

Anyway, I don't know if a bigger playoff is the answer. I know the old system would likely be untenable in the modern landscape. But some of the concerns strike me as conflicting laments.

I don't think it is because I think it unavoidably dilutes the regular season but I think it is inevitable because there will always be pressure to expand for a multitude of reasons including:

• Controversy over 2/3, then 4/5, then 6/7, then 8/9 etc, and
• Pressure for inclusion to give small conference teams a chance,
• Financial pressure for more profitable playoff games.

Also, when (and I think it is when, not if) we expand, I think that the comissioners will be either actually or effectively forced to provide a path for non P5 teams by litigation or Congressional oversight or the credible threat of one or both of those. I mentioned this upthread and I'm curious as to @OrangeAfroMan s thoughts.

Thus my preference is a 5+1+2 model including:

• The five P5 Champions, and
• The highest ranked non-P5 Champion, and
• The next two highest ranked teams.

Then I'd add the following stipulations:

• The four highest ranked league Champions host the first round (Quarter-Finals) in mid/late December.
• The semi-finals are slotted by seed (highest remaining seed plays lowest remaining seed) in the bowls at roughly NYD without regard to league titles.

This isn't what medinabuckeye would do if he was King, it is a pragmatic proposal that I feel is the best plausible solution once expansion inevitably happens.

Goals:

• Keep all regular season as meaningful as possible. This proposal accomplishes that by keeping OOC games meaningful because being seeded higher substantially increases the odds of winning a quarter-final and it keeps league games meaningful because you have to be a league champion to host a quarter-final.
• Prevent teams from having a reason to rest their starters and take a loss. Example, let's say that Bama and UF are undefeated and #1/2 heading into the SECCG. If everybody else has a loss or two then both are not just already in the CFP, but they are likely to be the top two seeds. My proposal still keeps the SECCG meaningful because the winner gets to host some hapless tallest midget in their quarter-final while the loser is going to have to travel across the country to play a P5 Champion.
• Try to promote both regional and national interest in the game. For all contenders (which would include all teams mathematically in their conference race) there is both regional competition (for the league title and a spot) and national competition (for seeding because there would frequently be a humongous difference between being the last team in and traveling to Tuscaloosa or being the 4th league champion and hosting your opponent).

[ELA]

I would also say any at large team must have 9 wins over P5 opponents

[OrangeAfroMan]

Also, when (and I think it is when, not if) we expand, I think that the comissioners will be either actually or effectively forced to provide a path for non P5 teams by litigation or Congressional oversight or the credible threat of one or both of those. I mentioned this upthread and I'm curious as to @OrangeAfroMan s thoughts.

When it comes to this aspect of it, I's simply suggest the NCAA or whatever ruling body stop the lie that G5 can win a NC and either make them an in-between of P5 and FCS or relegate them to FCS.  

I'm perfectly content with having things stay how they are and the best G5 team win a NC every year.  But it would be theirs and not THE NC.  

If that was done, you wouldn't venture into the murky waters of gov't oversight in sports.