2021-2022 B1G Basketball thread

[MaximumSam]

I am rooting hard for Purdue and Gonzaga, mostly because I want to see Chet Holmgren guard Zach Edey. Purdue should get by the Peacocks, though both North Carolina and UCLA would provide a stiff challenge. On the other side I would have been rooting for Houston, but I'm afraid Kelvin Sampson would go fully nude if they get to the Final Four.

[medinabuckeye1]

This year's first two rounds compared to the average:

• #1 seeds advance to the R32 99.32% of the time and to the S16 85.14% of the time.  This year it was 100% and 75%.  
• #2 seeds advance to the R32 93.24% of the time and to the S16 62.84% of the time.  This year it was 75% and 50%.  
• #3 seeds advance to the R32 85.14% of the time and to the S16 52.03% of the time.  This year it was 100% and 50%.  
• #4 seeds advance to the R32 79.05% of the time and to the S16 47.30% of the time.  This year it was 100% and 75%.  
• #5 seeds advance to the R32 64.19% of the time and to the S16 33.78% of the time.  This year it was 50% and 25%.  
• #6 seeds advance to the R32 61.49% of the time and to the S16 29.05% of the time.  This year it was 25% and 0%.  
• #7 seeds advance to the R32 60.81% of the time and to the S16 18.92% of the time.  This year it was 75% and 0%.  
• #8 seeds advance to the R32 47.97% of the time and to the S16 10.14% of the time.  This year it was 25% and 25%.  
• #9 seeds advance to the R32 52.03% of the time and to the S16 4.73% of the time.  This year it was 75% and 0%.  
• #10 seeds advance to the R32 39.19% of the time and to the S16 16.22% of the time.  This year it was 25% and 25%.  
• #11 seeds advance to the R32 38.51% of the time and to the S16 17.57% of the time.  This year it was 75% and 50%.  
• #12 seeds advance to the R32 35.81% of the time and to the S16 14.86% of the time.  This year it was 50% and 0%.  
• #13 seeds advance to the R32 20.95% of the time and to the S16 4.05% of the time.  This year it was 0% and 0%.  
• #14 seeds advance to the R32 14.86% of the time and to the S16 1.35% of the time.  This year it was 0% and 0%.  
• #15 seeds advance to the R32 6.76% of the time and to the S16 2.03% of the time.  This year it was 25% and 25%.  
• #16 seeds advance to the R32 0.68% of the time and to the S16 0.00% of the time.  This year it was 0% and 0%.  

The biggest variance from average was the #11 seeds winning three out of four of the 6/11 games and then two of them going on to beat #3.  

The next biggest variance from average is the #15 seed upset.  Combined with last year it is even more striking.  Prior to the 2021 Tournament the #15 seeds had only knocked off #2 eight times and they had only followed that up with a win over 7/10 once.  In the last two tournaments they have done both of those things twice each.  


The #4 seeds did surprisingly well.  All four of them won their first game and three of the four are in the S16.  

[ELA]

[medinabuckeye1]

St. Peters head to the Sweet 16. Second straight year for a 15 seed. The times they are a changing.

I'm going to see a lot more evidence before I conclude that the #13's and below are in fact getting better.  

In my previous post I noted that #15's have done VERY well the past two years compared to the long-term average:

• Prior to the 2021 Tournament they had only eight wins over #2 in 35 tries (roughly one every four years), they have two in the last two years.  
• Prior to the 2021 Tournament they had made the S16 only once ever, they have two in the last two years.  

That said, if the #15's were getting better or the #2's were getting worse then I would expect to see that bleed over to the #16's, #14's, and #13's also getting better and/or the #1's, #3's, and #4's getting worse but I'm not seeing that.  Instead, Saint Peters' win over Kentucky was the only win by a team seeded #13 or lower in the first round and obviously their win over Murray State was the only win by a team seeded #13 or lower in the second round.  

[MaximumSam]

Worth noting that every 13 seed was within single digits of the four seeds. Zero blowouts in that group. Not sure how that compares to normal. Still, I am compelled to find that the gap has shrunk.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Eh, the sample size is too small IMHO to really state that the Cinderellas are anywhere near closer to winning the prince's heart at the ball, just because a few of them are proving to be hot by trailer park standards...

[medinabuckeye1]

Worth noting that every 13 seed was within single digits of the four seeds. Zero blowouts in that group. Not sure how that compares to normal. Still, I am compelled to find that the gap has shrunk.

I don't track scores for three reasons:

• I think it is misleading to do it objectively just by final differential because some close games become not close when the leader makes a ton of FT's and some not close games become close when the leader rests their starters and the loser makes a big run at the end to make it look respectable.  
• It is just a whole lot more work then simply tracking W's an L's which are also completely objective.  
• Scores matter in a one-game sense, but I think when you look at the bigger picture the objective question of how many wins did they get tells you everything you need to know.  The #13 seeds went 0-4 in the first round this year.  If all four games were close (just taking your word for it, I don't care) and that continues then #13's will win some of those eventually (not this year, but in general).  

In the 37 tournaments since expansion (1985-2022 not incl 2020):

• #13 has knocked off #4 31 times, not quite once per year.  
• #14 has knocked off #3 22 times, a little better than every other year.  
• #15 has knocked off #2 10 times, a little better than once every four years.  
• #16 has knocked off #1 once, once every 37 years.  

In the last two years:

• #13 won twice (both in 2021), that is about average for the two years.  
• #14 won once (last year), that is about average for the two years.  
• #15 won twice (once each year), that is a lot better than average.  
• #16 went 0-8, that is about average.  

So over the last two years the #15 seeds are considerably ahead of their long-term average but there is zero bleed-over to improvement among the #13's, #14's, and #16's.  They are all right about at their averages.  

If you go back and add in 2019:

• #13 won thrice (once in 2019, twice in 2021), slightly above average.  
• #14 won once (in 2021), slightly below average.  
• #15 won twice (2021 and 2022), better than average.  
• #16 went 0-12, that is about average.  

So over the last three tournaments the #15 seeds are above their average while the #13's are slightly above their average and the #14's are slightly below theirs so that washes out and the #16's are about at their average.  

I still don't see this bleed-over to improved #13's, #14's, and #16's.  

[MaximumSam]

Eh, the sample size is too small IMHO to really state that the Cinderellas are anywhere near closer to winning the prince's heart at the ball, just because a few of them are proving to be hot by trailer park standards...

It is a small sample size, but I have a hard time with the argument that the talent at the top of college basketball hasn't eroded over the last thirty years. Doesn't match with what my eyes are telling me.

[medinabuckeye1]

Eh, the sample size is too small IMHO to really state that the Cinderellas are anywhere near closer to winning the prince's heart at the ball, just because a few of them are proving to be hot by trailer park standards...

And that is really the point as far as I am concerned.  The #13's and below can win in the trailer park (first weekend) once in a while but we've yet to see one win a second weekend game.  

[Benthere2]

It is a small sample size, but I have a hard time with the argument that the talent at the top of college basketball hasn't eroded over the last thirty years. Doesn't match with what my eyes are telling me.

maybe not eroded but I think with the Portal the talent will spread out a bit.  I think the success some programs are seeing will cause more movement of talent and the whole tournament will be less predictable going forward (if it ever was predictable) 

[betarhoalphadelta]

It is a small sample size, but I have a hard time with the argument that the talent at the top of college basketball hasn't eroded over the last thirty years. Doesn't match with what my eyes are telling me.

I dunno... None of these teams make the F4... They don't even make the E8 (per Medina's point), and barely ever make the second weekend. 

If the talent at the top erodes, what it would probably be shown as is a dilution of the seeds that make the F4, the championship game, and the winner of the championship. 

I don't know if that's happened... But if 3 and 4 seeds are starting to get to the F4 in increasing numbers, and reaching the final game in increasing numbers, and winning it all in increasing numbers--I'd call that an erosion of the top-end talent. 

[SuperMario]

It is a small sample size, but I have a hard time with the argument that the talent at the top of college basketball hasn't eroded over the last thirty years. Doesn't match with what my eyes are telling me.

How do you define talent here? Are you saying athletic ability, or the ability to fundamentally play the game well? Curious because my brother and I had this conversation and I think a lot of these kids get by on being so athletic it attracts them to the top tier programs, but mid level programs find the kids that have mid-level talent, but work their tails off to be fundamentally sound and cohesive as a team. Curious what others see/mean by eroded.

[Brutus Buckeye]

[MaximumSam]

How do you define talent here? Are you saying athletic ability, or the ability to fundamentally play the game well? Curious because my brother and I had this conversation and I think a lot of these kids get by on being so athletic it attracts them to the top tier programs, but mid level programs find the kids that have mid-level talent, but work their tails off to be fundamentally sound and cohesive as a team. Curious what others see/mean by eroded.

Well just in general the top recruits play much less, if at all. Even if everyone works at the same level, a mid-level guy who works for four years will have some advantages over first year players, even the very talented. You put together a whole team of those guys, you've got something. As the top comes down, the gap is narrowed. So it should be a lot less surprising to see 15 seeds make the Sweet Sixteen, or 16 seeds win, or to have a lot of variance among who makes the finals.