2021-2022 B1G Basketball thread

[ELA]

I don't think you are ever going to see bleed over into the 16 seeds, simply because the gap is so large.  Just like there is a gap between about 12 and 13, due to legitimately good mid majors, whose numbers hold them back due to scheduling limitations, I think the gap between 15 and 16 is also big.  Those are almost always trash conference champs, and middling low majors who got hot for one weekend.

That's why I did not think the 16 over 1 would ever happen.  The 15s had some teams that could be seeded higher, if they had the opportunity.  The 16s were not

[OrangeAfroMan]

Kansas could realistically win the national championship with Providence being their toughest opponent (by seeding).

[FearlessF]

 a couple 16 seeds have put a real scare into a couple of #1s

[utee94]

Good battle by Texas.

Sorry to be the team that eliminated your guys, 94, but... they were in our way

It's Beard's first year at Texas.  I didn't expect a deep run this year but things are looking up in Austin.

[ELA]

I don't think we had an NBA thread this year, so here it is.  I feel like because LeBron has been on the radar since he was 15, we forget how old he is.  He is in his 19th NBA season.  At this age, MJ was in the middle of his second retirement.  Jordan played 13 seasons with the Bulls, and one was basically just him joining a playoff run.  Even comparing him to Kobe, he's right where Kobe was in his final NBA season, after basically missing all of the prior two seasons.  What he is doing at his age, is absolutely insane

[medinabuckeye1]

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 think your eyes are telling you what you want to see.  I like evidence not hunches.  I get hunches too but as everyone here knows, I'm a stats guy so when I get a hunch I go looking for ways to test it.  

The evidence simply doesn't back up your hunch.  From my post right above what I quoted here:

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. 

So over the last three first weekends of the tournament played (2019-2022 not incl 2020) the #13-16 seeds are a combined 6-42 in the first round for an average of 2-14 per year for a percentage of 0.125.  If you go back to all 37 first weekends of the tournament played since expansion (1985-2022 not incl 2020) they are 64-528 for a percentage of 0.108.  That IS improvement but here is where the sample size problem comes in, that is less than one game over three years (48 games).  Ie, the percentages would be:

• 7-41 is 0.146
• 6-42 is 0.125
• 5-43 is 0.104

So the long-term, 37 tournament average since expansion is for the #13's and below to win just over 5 games in three tournaments (5.19) to be precise) and in the last three tournaments they have won six.  A difference of just 0.81 out of 48 games is simply not enough to signify a trend.  

Another, perhaps simpler way to look at it is this:
Over the 37 tournaments since expansion the #13's and below have won 64 opening round games.  That is an average of just under two per year and in the last three years:

• One in 2022 (#15 St. Peters over #2 Kentucky)
• Four in 2021 (#15 Oral Roberts over #2 tOSU, #14 Abilene Christian over #3 Texas, #13 Ohio-U over #4 Virginia, #13 N. Texas over #4 Purdue)
• One in 2019 (#13 UC Irvine over #4 Kansas State)

The bottom four seeds get 16 cracks a year at this.  In 37 years they've averaged just under 2-14 which is also what they averaged over the last three tournaments.  If we start seeing them consistently winning three or four games a year that is one thing but so far, we haven't.  

Searching for evidence of this trend that you think you see I went back further:

• 2018, 3-13:  The #13's and below went 3-13 in the first round.  #16 UMBC had that once-ever #16 over #1 Virginia monster upset but the #15's and #14's went 0-fer.  Two #13's did knock off #4's (Buffalo over Zona, Marshall over Wichita State)
• 2017, 0-16
• 2016, 3-13:  (#15 MTSU over #2 Michigan State, #14 SFA over #3 West Virginia, #13 Hawaii over #4 California)

So going all the way back to the last six first weekends played the #13's and below are 12-84 in their first round games, that same 0.125 percentage and almost identical to their 37 year record.  


If these bottom seeds were getting better relative to the top seeds they'd be winning more games and they simply aren't.  

[medinabuckeye1]

I don't think you are ever going to see bleed over into the 16 seeds, simply because the gap is so large.  Just like there is a gap between about 12 and 13, due to legitimately good mid majors, whose numbers hold them back due to scheduling limitations, I think the gap between 15 and 16 is also big.  Those are almost always trash conference champs, and middling low majors who got hot for one weekend.

That's why I did not think the 16 over 1 would ever happen.  The 15s had some teams that could be seeded higher, if they had the opportunity.  The 16s were not

You are probably right because there are always going to be some, as you put it, "trash conference champs, and middling low majors who got hot for one weekend" but it is hard to test this because the #1 seeds are extremely good.  I can test/prove this gap between the #1's and everybody else, for example, based on their round-by-round performance.  #1 seeds have a winning percentage of at least .600 in each round:

• .9932 in the first round, 147-1
• .8571 in the second round, 126-21
• .7937 in the S16, 100-26
• .600 in the E8, 60-40
• .617 in the F4, 37-23
• .622 in the NC, 23-14

Note that the percentages for #1 seeds in the F4 and NC are held back by the fact that they are frequently playing each other and obviously when two #1 seeds clash the #1 seeds as a group go .500.  

Every other seed is below .500 in at least one of the rounds (usually the round where they run into the #1's:

• #2's are sub .500 in the last three rounds with their worst being .414 in the F4
• #3's are sub .500 in the S16, E8, and NC with the worst being .364 in the NC
• #4's are sub .500 in the S16, F4, and NC with the worst being .231 in the F4
• #6's are sub .500 in the second round, the S16, the E8, and the NC with the worst being .200 in the E8
• #7's are sub .500 in the middle four rounds with the worst being .300 in the E8
• #8's are sub .500 in the first two rounds and the NC with the worst being .211 in the second round
• None of the other seeds have ever won a NC so they are obviously .000 at some point (NC for #5's; F4 for #9-11; E8 for #12; S16 for #13-15; second round for #16).  

I'd also point out that #1 seeds make up:

• More than 40% of F4 participants, 60 of 144.  Second most is #2 with 29.  
• More than half of NC participants, 37 of 72.  Second most is #2 with 12.  
• Nearly two-thirds of NC's, 23 of 36.  Second most is #2 with 5.  

Those gaps are humongous: #1's have twice as many F4 appearances as any other seed, more than three times as many NC appearances as any other seed, and nearly five times as many NC's as any other seed.  

Like you, I never thought I'd see a #16 beat a #1 because of the significance of both the gap between #1 and #2 AND between #16 and #15.  That said, there have now been 148 #1 vs #16 games and it has happened once so I think it just falls in the category of broken clocks and whatnot.  Given enough chances the little giants will eventually have a REALLY good day and knock off the favorite.  

[ELA]

I mean also you could just take the gap on KenPom between the average 15 and 16 seeds, and I would bet it would be the largest gap between seeds at any level

[847badgerfan]

If Kansas or AZ win it all, will they be stripped of the title shortly thereafter?

[medinabuckeye1]

@MaximumSam 
I decided to look a little deeper and I found something that I thought was interesting.  While the #13-16 seeds are NOT significantly improved from their long-term average, they ARE significantly improved from their performance about 10-15 years ago.  

The attached chart shows the total first round wins by the #13-16 seeds in rolling five (green line at the bottom), ten (red line in the middle), and 15 (blue line at the top) year periods.  Ie:

• The far left green dot shows that the #13-16 seeds won 10 games in the first five years (1985-1989) of the expanded tournament, then the next green dot shows that they also won 10 games in the five years from 1986-1990, etc.  
• The far left red dot shows that the #13-16 seeds won 18 games in the first 10 years (1985-1994) of the expanded tournament, then the next red dot shows that they won 20 games in the 10 years from 1986-1995, etc.  
• The far left blue dot shows that the #13-16 seeds won 28 games in the first 15 years (1985-1999) of the expanded tournament, then the next blue dot shows that they won 27 games in the 15 years from 1986-2000, etc.  

What I thought was interesting was that while we aren't currently all that far above the long-term averages, the #13-16 seeds all bottomed out in roughly the early 2000's.  They were winning at a higher clip in the late 80's and 90's and they are back to about the same pace now that they were at back then but in between they won a LOT less.  

The five-year rolling line:

• Maxed out at 12 wins in the five years from 2012-2016 (an average of 2.4 wins per year)
• Was also at 11 wins in the five years from 1987-1991 and 2016-2021
• Bottomed out at just five wins in the five years from 2000-2004 and also 2003-2007 (average of 1.0 wins per year)

The 10-year rolling line:

• Maxed out at 21 wins in the 10 years from 2012-2022 and also 21 wins from 2011-2021 (an average of 2.1 wins per year)
• Was also at 20 wins in the 10 years from 1986-1995
• Bottomed out at just 12 wins in the 10 years from 2000-2009 and also 12 wins from 2002-2011 (an average of 1.2 wins per year)

The 15-year rolling line:

• Maxed out at 28 wins in the first 15 expanded tournaments (1985-1999) and also in the 15 years from 1987-2001 and again for 2006-2021 (average of 1.9 wins per year)
• Was also at 27 wins in the 15 years from 1986-2000 and again from 2007-2022
• Bottomed out at just 21 wins in the 15 years from 1993-2007 and again for 1994-2008 and again for 1996-2010 and again for 1997-2011 (average of 1.4 wins per year)

Conclusion:
The #13-16 seeds are not significantly up from their long-term average of just under two wins per tournament opening round but they are up from bottoming out in the early 2000's.  

I really have no idea why the #1-4 seeds were more dominant in the 2000's than they were in the 1980's, 1990's, and 2010's.  

It honestly could just be random statistical "noise".  Looking at the 15 year line, the total difference from best to worst for the #13-16 seeds is only half a game per year.  Basically a few buzzer-beaters falling for the underdogs (or not falling for the favorites) in the 80's, 90's and 2010's and a few buzzer-beaters falling for the favorites (or not falling for the underdogs) in the 2000's is enough to explain that difference.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

Arkansas up 6 on the Zags at the under 8 TO...

[SuperMario]

I really don’t understand why they continue to give Brandon Johns, jr so much playing time. A ton of missed assignments on D leading to 2 open 3’s, couple turnovers and missed open shots and free throws. A complete liability and still playing him. Why Terrance Williams doesn’t get more playing time than him blows my mind.

[MarqHusker]

The thing about 16 over 1 is that it wasn't done in dramatic last minute fashion or some fluke possession.  Umbc ran them off the court.  All the other close calls, Georgetown, Purdue, OU. Etc were the usual late game span where the underdog craps its pants and the 1 seed is in beast mode.

[FearlessF]

speaking of #1s going down

the Zags are out