@medinabuckeye1 @ELA @847badgerfan et all ... Need some outside perspective on my boilers ... my thoughts are if we can hit >40% on 3s in the tournament we are really tough to beat, first half vs Illinois we hit 50% (6/12) and were up 20 at half, second half (0/6) from 3 and we gave up the lead. To me it is as simple as making shots, I feel we generally get good looks from 3. If we aren't hitting 3s the game will be a dog fight (like Wisconsin game). Last years team wouldn't have been able to win games when missing shots, this years team I think plays good enough D to keep us in those games. Thoughts?I hope you Purdue guys don't get mad at me for this but Purdue's long history of underperforming in the NCAA Tournament is a mystery that I can't understand.
A long time ago,
@ELA compared Keady to Bo. I don't remember the context but it struck me as an interersting comment. He said something to the effect that if you made a "Mount Rushmore" of Big Ten football or basketball coaches there is literally no question that Keady would ABSOLUTELY be on the BB version and Bo would ABSOLUTELY be on the FB version. Within the league those guys were legends. Nationally, not so much.
With regard to Bo, I *THINK* I understand it. Woody had a vastly better Bowl record and won multiple NC's but, to be fair to Bo, all of Woody's NC's came before Bo was hired as did most of Woody's bowl success. The league as a whole (not just Bo) wasn't very good in the 70's and 80's in bowls.
With regard to Purdue/Keady/Painter I honestly can't explain it but before we just throw up our hands, lets analyze the level of underperformance:
Years ago I used to complain about Ohio State's "underperformance" in the NCAA Tournament. Back then I was measuring underperformance incorrectly. I was simply comparing to seed and basically thinking:
A #1 seed should go to the F4. A #2 seed should go to the E8. A #3 - #4 seed should go to the S16. Etc. That isn't really fair because upsets do happen and our teams are vastly more likely to be upset than to upset someone because structurally our teams are usually favored.
So then, being a numbers guy, I built a spreadsheet where I track NCAA performance by seed. Here is the analysis:
Looking at the top line (#1 seeds), they:
Have won their opener (to make R32) 147 out of 148 times, 99.32%. Have won their R32 game (to make S16) 126 times out of 148 chances, 85.14%. Have won their S16 game (to make E8) 101 times out of 148 chances, 68.24%. Have won their E8 game (to make F4) 61 times out of 148 chances, 41.22%. Have won their national semi-final (to make NCG) 38 times out of 148 chances, 25.68%. Have won the National Championship 24 times out of 148 chances, 16.22%. Now when we talk about Tournament performance I use this as the baseline. By my calculations Painter has had:
#2 seed once, 2018 #3 seed thrice, 2022, 2019, 2011 #4 seed thrice, 2021, 2017, 2010 #5 seed twice, 2016, 2009 #6 seed once, 2008 #9 seed twice, 2015, 2007 #10 seed once, 2012 Based on the chart I posted above, those seeds should have achieved (and what they actually achieved):
9.18 R32 appearances, 10 actual 4.83 S16's, 6 actual 2 E8's, 1 actual 0.95 F4's, n/a 0.42 NCG appearances, n/a 0.15 NC's, n/a Painter has actually slightly overachieved in the first two rounds. He has 0.82 more opening round wins than his seeds would suggest and he has 1.17 more S16's than his seeds would suggest. So far so good.
Then it gets bad, REALLY bad. Painter's teams *SHOULD* have two E8's and he has one. They should also have 0.95 F4's so almost a F4 and he has none. The overperformance in the first weekend makes this even more odd. He has put six teams in the S16 but they've gone 1-6 in the second weekend.
Adding in Keady's teams all the way back to the expansion to a 64 team tournament in 1985, Purdue has:
#1 seed thrice #2 seed thrice #3 seed five times #4 seed thrice #5 seed twice #6 seed four times #7 seed once #8 seed once #9 seed four times #10 seed twice Here is what those teams *SHOULD* have produced based on the history of those seeds in the 37 tournaments from 1985-2022 (no 2020) and what they actually did produce:
20.10 R32 appearances, 21 11.10 S16's, 11 6 E8's, 2 2.97 F4's, n/a 1.57 NCG appearances, n/a 0.78 NC's, n/a So again, the Boilermakers have done fine the first weekend. They *SHOULD* have just over 20 R32 appearances and they have 21, great. They should have just over 11 S16's and they have exactly 11, not bad. Then it gets bad:
Based on the seeds that they've earned, Purdue *SHOULD* have six E8's. They only have two. Based on the seeds that they've earned, Purdue *SHOULD* have almost three F4's. They have none. Based on the seeds that they've earned, Purdue *SHOULD* have more than one NCG appearance. They have none. Based on the seeds that they've earned, Purdue *SHOULD* have almost a NC . . . I don't understand it. I was honestly REALLY happy for Purdue last year when this happened:
VIDEO https://youtu.be/j3CANELyPo0 Purdue headed to the S16 and for once (as
@betarhoalphadelta likes to point out) they weren't facing a #1. They weren't even facing a #2. They were in a S16 Pod with a #4, a #8, and a #15. Well we all know how that worked out.