2021-2022 B1G Basketball thread

[ELA]

Interesting that the #8 Michigan vs #9 Indiana game Thursday at lunchtime is basically a Tournament game.  The winner picks up a quality win and even if they lose to Illinois on Friday that wouldn't really hurt them since it would be a "good" loss while the loser is probably out. 

My predictions:

I think there's a lot of chalk, and Illinois wins their 2nd straight

[medinabuckeye1]

Lunardi's latest, entering the BTT says that we have eight teams in with two of those eight on the bubble and another bubble team barely out.  The bubble teams are:

• Rutgers:  Second-to-last team in, play-in game for a #12 seed
• Michigan:  Last bye, #11 seed.  
• Indiana:  First team out.  

The B1G teams in are:

• #2 Wisconsin
• #3 Purdue
• #4 Illinois
• #6 Iowa, Ohio State
• #8 Michigan State
• #11 Michigan
• #12 (play-in) Rutgers

Based on past performance of teams with those seeds, those teams should result in:

• 4.86 teams in the R32
• 2.56 teams in the S16
• 1.19 teams in the E8
• 0.52 teams in the F4
• 0.23 teams in the NC
• 0.09 NC's

[847badgerfan]

Congrats to Johnny Davis on being named B1G player of the year.

Congrats to Greg Gard on being named B1G coach of the year.

[medinabuckeye1]

I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly don't like our league's chances of doing much damage in the Tournament.  I think we are a very strong league top-to-bottom and I think we have a slew of teams that are capable of beating almost anybody but none of them have shown the consistency necessary to get very far.  

I'm pretty down on my Buckeyes but that said the Buckeyes have some impressive performances:

• A win over Dook (#2 per Lunardi)
• A win over Wisconsin (#2 per Lunardi)
• A road win over Illinois (#4 per Lunardi)
• A VERY close road loss to Purdue (#3 per Lunardi)

If they play like that, the only thing that would truly surprise me would be a win over a #1 seed.  The problem is that they also have some BAD performances and if they play like "bad Ohio State" they'll get sent home in the first round.  

Lunardi has the Buckeyes as the #6 in the East Region playing Memphis in Pittsburgh then (probably) Villanova if they get past the Tigers.  Then, if they were to make the second weekend they'd likely get Kentucky in the S16 and Kansas in the E8 if they get past the Wildcats.  

On a good day the Buckeyes could absolutely beat either Kentucky or Villanova but if they have a bad day, Memphis will send them packing.  

I know that, to an extent, it is ALWAYS true that teams have good and bad days but I just feel like the league's teams are less consistent than normal this year.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly don't like our league's chances of doing much damage in the Tournament.  I think we are a very strong league top-to-bottom and I think we have a slew of teams that are capable of beating almost anybody but none of them have shown the consistency necessary to get very far. 

I know that, to an extent, it is ALWAYS true that teams have good and bad days but I just feel like the league's teams are less consistent than normal this year. 

Certainly been true of Purdue this year. Tremendous ceiling. Abysmal floor. 

Two centers that create matchup nightmares for any team in the tournament, coupled with the most dynamic guard we may have EVER had in the Old Gold & Black, and a sharpshooter in Sasha that has such a quick release that if he gets half a step, he can get that shot off cleanly. Depth at pretty much every position, and a supporting cast that all have diverse skills that can support the stars.

But when the 3-ball isn't falling, and when Ivey is bullying his way to the rim and not kicking out when it isn't there, and if a team has a big that shoots from deep and can pull Tredey away from the paint... And when they forget to play defense? It can be UGLY. 

I don't think there's a team in the field that Purdue can't beat, but if they come out flat they can lose to almost anyone too. 

[ELA]

We were in Florida, so I didn't see the road win at Wisconsin.  I'm going to assume MSU played well there.  That might be the only time MSU has played well since before Christmas.  Maybe the home win against Michigan?  But that was when Michigan was still a mess.  Even the home win against Purdue, Purdue played horribly, and MSU played meh.  If MSU had played well, they could have won that easily, instead they needed a buzzer beater, and still had an unforgiveable turnover to give Purdue a second shot.

MSU has enough talent that if they play well, I think they could beat an Ohio State or Rutgers.  Anyone better than that requires that team to come with a C- or worse performance.

[bayareabadger]

I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly don't like our league's chances of doing much damage in the Tournament.  I think we are a very strong league top-to-bottom and I think we have a slew of teams that are capable of beating almost anybody but none of them have shown the consistency necessary to get very far. 

I shrug over such things.

The tournament is weird, wonderful and dumb. Just gotta let it play out. 

[ELA]

Don't tell the NEC fans this doesn't matter.  Yikes

[medinabuckeye1]

What is at stake for each of the B1G teams in the B1G Tournament starting tonight in Indianapolis?  I'll take them by groups:

Group #1 are the two co-Champions and Purdue:

• 15-5/22-8 Illinois:  #14 in NET, #4 seed per Lunardi and ELA
• 15-5/24-6 Wisconsin:  #21 in NET, #2 seed per Lunardi, #4 seed per ELA
• 14-6/25-6 Purdue:  #13 in NET, #3 seed per Lunardi and ELA

None of these teams would have the resume for a #1 seed even with a 3-0 run in the BTT but I am fairly confident that any of these teams would secure a #2 seed with a BTT Championship.  There probably isn't more than one #2 seed available for the B1G though so the other two (all three if none of these teams wins) will be in the #3/4 range.  That is no small difference:

• #2 seeds win their opener 94% of the time for the 3/4 that drops to 85% and 78% respectively. 
• #2 seeds make the S16 almost 2/3 the time, for the 3/4  that drops to roughly half. 
• #2 seeds make the E8 almost half the time, for the 3/4 that drops to 26% and 15% respectively. 
• #2 seeds are about twice as likely as 3/4 seeds to make the F4 and more likely to win a semi-final or NC. 

Group #2 is Iowa, Ohio State, and Michigan State:

• 12-8/22-9 Iowa:  #15 in NET, #6 seed per Lunardi, #7 seed per ELA
• 12-8/19-10 Ohio State:  #22 in NET, #6 seed per Lunardi #7 seed per ELA
• 11-9/20-11 Michigan State:  #40 in NET, #8 seed per Lunardi and ELA

For these three teams I think the goal has to be to get or stay away from the #7/8/9/10 (particularly 8/9) lines where S16 appearances are quite rare.  For comparison:

• Roughly 1/2 of #4 seeds make the S16
• Roughly 1/3 of #5 seeds make the S16
• Almost 1/3 of #6 seeds make the S16
• Less than one-in-five #7 seeds make the S16
• Less than one-in-ten #8 seeds make the S16
• Less than one-in-twenty #9 seeds make the S16
• Less than one-in-six #10 seeds make the S16
• Roughly one-in-six #11 seeds make the S16
• Less than one-in-six #12 seeds make the S16

The 8/9 seeds have it particularly rough.  Of the 144 pairs of 8/9 seeds since expansion only one got to play a #16 seed in the second round.  That one won of course but the other 143 8/9 winners all had to play a #1 seed in the second round and the results were what you would expect:

• #8 seeds are 14-56 against #1 seeds, .200
• #9 seeds are 6-67 against #1 seeds .082

Even the 7/10 seeds are MUCH less likely to make the S16 than the #6 seeds. 

For Iowa and Ohio State this means that they HAVE to avoid a bad loss on Thursday against UNL/NU (IA) or MN/PSU (tOSU).  That almost certainly would keep either the Buckeyes or Hawkeyes at least off the 8/9 lines and it might secure a #6.  If not, a quarter-final win on Friday against RU (IA) or PU (tOSU) would almost certainly land them at #6 or better. 

For the Spartans beating UMD on Thursday might get them off the 8/9 lines but they might also need to knock off Wisconsin on Friday.  A semi-final win, particularly if it came against PU, would probably get them up to #6. 

Group #3 is the bubble teams:

• 12-8/18-12 Rutgers:  #76 in NET, second-to-last team in per Lunardi, #2 in the NIT per ELA
• 11-9/17-13 Michigan:  #31 in NET, Last bye per Lunardi, #9 per ELA
• 9-11/18-12 Indiana:  #44 in NET, First team out per Lunardi, #1 in the NIT per ELA

All these teams are on or REALLY close to the bubble depending on who you ask.  Personally, I think that the IU/M game on Thursday is likely a play-in game and Michigan is the only one of the three that I think would have so much as a prayer with an 0-1 performance in Indianapolis.  Rutgers definitely has work to do but the question is how much work.  IMHO, one win might be enough for the Scarlet Knights but I think that depends on who they end up playing.  I think that beating Iowa and losing to Illinois probably gets them in but beating UNL/NU and losing to IU/M probably isn't enough. 

Group #4 is the rest of the league:

• 7-13/15-16 Maryland:  #89 in NET, out. 
• 7-13/14-15 Northwestern:  #82 in NET, out. 
• 7-13/12-16 Penn State:  #93 in NET, out. 
• 4-16/13-16 Minnesota:  #107 in NET, out. 
• 4-16/10-21 Nebraska:  #140 in NET, out. 

These teams would need a three (UMD) or four (the others) win run to a title to get into the dance. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I just want to stay off the 4 line... I have a lot more trust that Purdue as a 3 could knock off a 2 in the S16 than they could knock off a 1. 

[medinabuckeye1]

I just want to stay off the 4 line... I have a lot more trust that Purdue as a 3 could knock off a 2 in the S16 than they could knock off a 1.

And there are multiple ways that staying off that #4 line helps:

• As a #4 (or 5, 12, or 13) if you make the S16 there is an 85.42% chance that the team on the other side of the Court will be a #1.  
• As a #3 (or 6, 11, or 14) if you make the S16 not only will you definitely NOT face a #1, but the chance of facing a #2 is much lower, only 63.19%.  

Then, on top of that:

• #1 seeds are 100-23 (.813)
• #2 seeds are 65-26 (.714)

Then, when you do face the possibility of facing a #1 seed in the E8, the chance that you actually WILL face a #1 seed is down to 69.44% so there is almost a one-in-three chance that you'll duck that problem altogether (at least until the third weekend).  

You are not wrong to think this way, here are the wins in each round by seed (out of 144 of each):


3's have made 37 E8's, #4's have made barely over half that (21).  

[ELA]

I just want to stay off the 4 line... I have a lot more trust that Purdue as a 3 could knock off a 2 in the S16 than they could knock off a 1.

Not sure there's a ton of difference there.  I always think the big gap is between the 2s and the 3s.  That's the only reason I care about it this year, is to see if MSU can beat Maryland and Wisconsin, and if so, is that enough to get them up to a 6?  I still think they probably need to get to Sunday, but who knows.  In 2016, I thought they were a lock for a 1, and they got a 2.  And in 2017 I was just hoping to avoid being in the First 4, and they ended up getting an 8

[medinabuckeye1]

Not sure there's a ton of difference there.  I always think the big gap is between the 2s and the 3s.  That's the only reason I care about it this year, is to see if MSU can beat Maryland and Wisconsin, and if so, is that enough to get them up to a 6?  I still think they probably need to get to Sunday, but who knows.  In 2016, I thought they were a lock for a 1, and they got a 2.  And in 2017 I was just hoping to avoid being in the First 4, and they ended up getting an 8

History does not back that up.  The big gap is between 1's and 2's.  It becomes more clear as you move deeper into the tournament:
In the first round:

• 1's have 143 wins (99.31%)
• 2's have 135 wins (93.75%, gap of 8)
• 3's have 122 wins (84.72%, gap of 13)

In that round the gap between 2 and 3 IS bigger than the gap between 1 and 2 but I think that has more to do with the gap between the 14's, 15's, and 16's.  

In the second round:

• 1's have 123 wins 
• 2's have 91 wins (gap of 32)
• 3's have 75 wins (gap of 16)

In the S16:

• 1's have 100 wins
• 2's have 65 wins (gap of 35)
• 3's have 37 wins (gap of 28)

In the E8:

• 1's have 60 wins
• 2's have 29 wins (gap of 31)
• 3's have 17 wins (gap of 12)

In the semi-final:

• 1's have 37 wins.  All others have 35 combined.  
• 2's have 12 wins (gap of 25)
• 3's have 11 wins (gap of 1)

In the NC:

• 1's have 23 wins.  All others have 13 combined.  
• 2's have 5 wins.  (gap of 18)
• 3's have 4 wins (gap of 1)

[ELA]

History does not back that up.  The big gap is between 1's and 2's.  It becomes more clear as you move deeper into the tournament:
In the first round:

• 1's have 143 wins (99.31%)
• 2's have 135 wins (93.75%, gap of 8)
• 3's have 122 wins (84.72%, gap of 13)

In that round the gap between 2 and 3 IS bigger than the gap between 1 and 2 but I think that has more to do with the gap between the 14's, 15's, and 16's. 

In the second round:

• 1's have 123 wins 86.01%
• 2's have 91 wins (gap of 32) 67.41%
• 3's have 75 wins (gap of 16) 61.48%

In the S16:

• 1's have 100 wins 81.30%
• 2's have 65 wins (gap of 35) 71.43%
• 3's have 37 wins (gap of 28) 49.33%

In the E8:

• 1's have 60 wins 60.00%
• 2's have 29 wins (gap of 31) 44.62%
• 3's have 17 wins (gap of 12) 45.95%

In the semi-final:

• 1's have 37 wins.  All others have 35 combined. 61.67%
• 2's have 12 wins (gap of 25) 41.38%
• 3's have 11 wins (gap of 1) 64.71%

In the NC:

• 1's have 23 wins.  All others have 13 combined. 62.16%
• 2's have 5 wins.  (gap of 18) 41.67%
• 3's have 4 wins (gap of 1) 36.36%

Interesting.  Also weird how 3 seeds fare MUCH better in the Final 4 than 2 seeds