2022-2023 B1G Basketball Thread

[medinabuckeye1]

So who is COTY?  Collins or Painter?

Frankly, I could see an argument for either.

Guessing 1st team Big Ten to be Edey, TJD, Murray (all three of those unanimous), and then the other two likely being Boo and Picket.  Any dark horses?  Dickinson?  J. Young?

Nothing against Painter, but if I had a vote it would be for Collins without even a second thought.  Painter has a better team but he has it at a school that has a long history of success in BB.  Collins has only a slightly lesser team at a school that has been to the NCAA Tournament a grand combined total of once.  

[grillrat]

@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 think it will also depend alot upon the type of team that Purdue faces.  In particular, the Purdue defense is somewhat designed to give up the intermediate jumper.  They have a strong paint defense (Edey) and a decent 3-pt defense, but if you get a player like JHS who can knock down every jumper, it gets into a boat race. 

So essentially:
If opponent is really good at the jumpers, then Purdue needs their 3-pt shooting to be over 35%
If opponent is mediocre at the jumpers, then Purdue can probably win with sub-30% 3-pt shooting as long as Smith / Loyer can get at least 20-ish points from regular shots.

[medinabuckeye1]

@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:

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.  

[847badgerfan]

I think it will also depend alot upon the type of team that Purdue faces.  In particular, the Purdue defense is somewhat designed to give up the intermediate jumper.  They have a strong paint defense (Edey) and a decent 3-pt defense, but if you get a player like JHS who can knock down every jumper, it gets into a boat race.

So essentially:
If opponent is really good at the jumpers, then Purdue needs their 3-pt shooting to be over 35%
If opponent is mediocre at the jumpers, then Purdue can probably win with sub-30% 3-pt shooting as long as Smith / Loyer can get at least 20-ish points from regular shots.

This is a good take. Still, I don't think they need to be aggressive taking 3's. Take whatever is easiest.

[847badgerfan]

Fond memory here.

[ELA]

Fond memory here.

Keep going.  

[ELA]

3/6 Update (now using actual standings to determine regular season conference champ, and excluding sub .500 teams)

South vs. East; Midwest vs. West

NCAA
SOUTH

• #1 Alabama vs. #16 Texas A&M-CC/SE Missouri State
• #8 Memphis vs. #9 USC
• #5 INDIANA vs. #12 Sam Houston State
• #4 Virginia vs. #13 Furman
• #3 Arizona vs. #14 Kennesaw State
• #6 Florida Atlantic vs. #11 NC State
• #7 Auburn vs. #10 Providence
• #2 Baylor vs. #15 Colgate

MIDWEST

• #1 Houston vs. #16 NC Central/Fairleigh Dickinson
• #8 West Virginia vs. #9 ILLINOIS
• #5 MICHIGAN STATE vs. #12 Drake
• #4 Tennessee vs. #13 Kent State
• #3 Marquette vs. #14 Dayton
• #6 Saint Mary's vs. #11 Oklahoma State
• #7 Iowa State vs. #10 Arkansas
• #2 PURDUE vs. #15 Youngstown State

WEST

• #1 UCLA vs. #16 Grambling
• #8 MARYLAND vs. #9 Boise State
• #5 Kentucky vs. #12 Oral Roberts
• #4 San Diego State vs. #13 Iona
• #3 Gonzaga vs. #14 Montana State
• #6 Texas A&M vs. #11 Nevada/North Texas
• #7 Creighton vs. #10 IOWA
• #2 Texas vs. #15 UC Irvine

EAST

• #1 Kansas vs. #16 South Alabama
• #8 Missouri vs. #9 NORTHWESTERN
• #5 Miami vs. #12 Charleston
• #4 Xavier vs. #13 Yale
• #3 Kansas State vs. #14 UNC Asheville
• #6 Duke vs. #11 PENN STATE/Mississippi State
• #7 TCU vs. #10 Utah State
• #2 Connecticut vs. #15 Vermont

NIT
PISCATAWAY

• #1 RUTGERS vs. #8 Morehead State
• #4 Florida vs. #5 UAB
• #3 Texas Tech vs. #6 Washington State
• #2 Pittsburgh vs. #7 Hofstra

CHAPEL HILL

• #1 North Carolina vs. #8 Howard
• #4 Liberty vs. #5 Villanova
• #3 VCU vs. #6 NEBRASKA
• #2 Vanderbilt vs. #7 Southern Miss

ANN ARBOR

• #1 MICHIGAN vs. #8 Alcorn State
• #4 Seton Hall vs. #5 Bradley
• #3 Utah Valley vs. #6 Toledo
• #2 Oregon vs. #7 Virginia Tech

TEMPE

• #1 Arizona State vs. #8 Eastern Washington
• #4 New Mexico vs. #5 Santa Clara
• #3 Clemson vs. #6 Cincinnati
• #2 WISCONSIN vs. #7 Louisiana

BIG TEN TEAMS

• #2 Purdue
• #5 Indiana - down from #4
• #5 Michigan State - up from #6
• #8 Maryland - down from #6
• #9 Illinois - up from #10
• #9 Northwestern - down from #8
• #10 Iowa - up from #11
• FF11 Penn State - up from NIT #2
• NIT #1 Rutgers - down from FF11
• NIT #1 Michigan
• NIT #2 Wisconsin
• NIT #6 Nebraska - down from NIT #5

Update from yesterday's results...

• North Carolina replaces North Texas as the last team in
• Youngstown State goes to the NIT on an autobid, since they got upset in the Horizon tourney, knocking out Virginia Tech.  Northern Kentucky replaces them in the field, but as a 16 seed, bumping Grambling up to a 15
• Louisiana beat South Alabama to join the field as a 13, which actually gets Virginia Tech back into the NIT, since Louisiana was there as an at large
• Only Big Ten change is Rutgers and Wisconsin flipped seeds in the NIT

[betarhoalphadelta]

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. 

I don't understand it.  I was honestly REALLY happy for Purdue last year when this happened:

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. 

I don't know how to explain it but I'm out. As I've mentioned, I have not watched a single minute of Purdue sports since that game. 

However, if you look at Painter's S16 appearances with the exception of that one, it makes some sense:

• 2009: 5 seed. Baby Boilers were sophomores and probably playing over their heads. Came in as a 5 seed, faced 1 seed UConn. 5 losing to a 1 is not a shock.
• 2010: 4 seed. Snakebit by injury. Hummel tore his ACL late in the season against MN. A team that was a likely 1 seed dropped to 4, and was famously picked as an upset darling in Obama's bracket. Faced the 1 seed and eventual champion, Duke, in the S16. But the story of that tournament was the Hummel injury, and even making the S16 was almost gravy after that. Took an amazing offensive performance by Chris Kramer in the A&M game just to get there. 
• 2017: 4 seed. A good team but not entirely a good matched set. The best player was Caleb Swanigan, but putting him on the floor meant you had to take Isaac Haas, the biggest matchup nightmare for opposing teams, off the floor. Neither could really play the 4 well enough to be effective together, and then the second-best player on that team (Vince Edwards) wasn't athletic enough to play the 3 if you tried it. Again, faced 1 seed Kansas. Actually were playing well for about 25 minutes, and I think Purdue was within 2, and then Kansas went on a shooting run for the ages and just turned it into a rout. 
• 2018: 2 seed. Another team snakebit by injury. Haas was pulled down and broke his elbow in the first round, leading to the now infamous hook & hold rule.  That took our biggest matchup advantage off the court and completely changed our offense. #3 seed Texas Tech would have been a difficult matchup even with Haas due to style of play, but without Haas it was just going to be rough. 
• 2019: 3 seed. "Upset" (although a 3 over a 2 isn't a huge upset) Tennessee in OT in the S16 to make Painter's first E8. In the game against 1 seed and eventual champ Virginia, Purdue actually led the game as the clock hit 00:00... But the (very improbable) tying shot was in the air, dropped, forcing overtime, and Purdue lost. 

So in 3 of 5 tournaments, Purdue was healthy but lost to the 1 seed. In 2 of 5 tournaments, key players were injured either late in the season or in the tournament itself. In one case, they faced the 1 seed (and eventual champ) and predictably lost. In another, they were the 2 seed and lost to the 3 seed, but with the injury, it wasn't a shock. And obviously in none of those cases did Purdue get a broken bracket. 

2011 was rough, because Purdue was the 3, I believe #10 FSU had already beaten the #2 in the R32, and Purdue was facing #11 seed VCU rather than #6 Georgetown in the R32. So a broken bracket, at least in the S16, was already shaping up. Well, VCU went on a tear eventually making the F4 themselves. 

But last year was the year. Broken bracket. Facing a 15 instead of a 2. And Purdue managed to slip on a HISTORIC (i.e. no 13+ seed had ever won a S16 game) banana peel. 

So I'm done. They don't get my energy or attention. I can't take it. 

[boilerbanger]

I don't know how to explain it but I'm out. As I've mentioned, I have not watched a single minute of Purdue sports since that game.

However, if you look at Painter's S16 appearances with the exception of that one, it makes some sense:

• 2009: 5 seed. Baby Boilers were sophomores and probably playing over their heads. Came in as a 5 seed, faced 1 seed UConn. 5 losing to a 1 is not a shock.
• 2010: 4 seed. Snakebit by injury. Hummel tore his ACL late in the season against MN. A team that was a likely 1 seed dropped to 4, and was famously picked as an upset darling in Obama's bracket. Faced the 1 seed and eventual champion, Duke, in the S16. But the story of that tournament was the Hummel injury, and even making the S16 was almost gravy after that. Took an amazing offensive performance by Chris Kramer in the A&M game just to get there.
• 2017: 4 seed. A good team but not entirely a good matched set. The best player was Caleb Swanigan, but putting him on the floor meant you had to take Isaac Haas, the biggest matchup nightmare for opposing teams, off the floor. Neither could really play the 4 well enough to be effective together, and then the second-best player on that team (Vince Edwards) wasn't athletic enough to play the 3 if you tried it. Again, faced 1 seed Kansas. Actually were playing well for about 25 minutes, and I think Purdue was within 2, and then Kansas went on a shooting run for the ages and just turned it into a rout.
• 2018: 2 seed. Another team snakebit by injury. Haas was pulled down and broke his elbow in the first round, leading to the now infamous hook & hold rule.  That took our biggest matchup advantage off the court and completely changed our offense. #3 seed Texas Tech would have been a difficult matchup even with Haas due to style of play, but without Haas it was just going to be rough.
• 2019: 3 seed. "Upset" (although a 3 over a 2 isn't a huge upset) Tennessee in OT in the S16 to make Painter's first E8. In the game against 1 seed and eventual champ Virginia, Purdue actually led the game as the clock hit 00:00... But the (very improbable) tying shot was in the air, dropped, forcing overtime, and Purdue lost.

So in 3 of 5 tournaments, Purdue was healthy but lost to the 1 seed. In 2 of 5 tournaments, key players were injured either late in the season or in the tournament itself. In one case, they faced the 1 seed (and eventual champ) and predictably lost. In another, they were the 2 seed and lost to the 3 seed, but with the injury, it wasn't a shock. And obviously in none of those cases did Purdue get a broken bracket.

2011 was rough, because Purdue was the 3, I believe #10 FSU had already beaten the #2 in the R32, and Purdue was facing #11 seed VCU rather than #6 Georgetown in the R32. So a broken bracket, at least in the S16, was already shaping up. Well, VCU went on a tear eventually making the F4 themselves.

But last year was the year. Broken bracket. Facing a 15 instead of a 2. And Purdue managed to slip on a HISTORIC (i.e. no 13+ seed had ever won a S16 game) banana peel.

So I'm done. They don't get my energy or attention. I can't take it.

Great breakdown here ... I look at it that if Painter keeps putting quality teams on the floor and gets enough cracks at it, they will break through one of these years.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Great breakdown here ... I look at it that if Painter keeps putting quality teams on the floor and gets enough cracks at it, they will break through one of these years.

Or they won't. 

It may not be statistically likely to flip a coin 20 times and have it come up tails 20 times in a row, but that doesn't mean on the 21st time you're "due". 

Between Painter and Keady, they're now 0 for 37. Given the strength of those teams, that's not statistically likely either. Yet here we are. 

[medinabuckeye1]

Or they won't.

It may not be statistically likely to flip a coin 20 times and have it come up tails 20 times in a row, but that doesn't mean on the 21st time you're "due".

Between Painter and Keady, they're now 0 for 37. Given the strength of those teams, that's not statistically likely either. Yet here we are.

I agree completely and that was pretty much the point of my post.  And I know you knew that because you are probably the only guy on this board as stats immersed as I am.  

Looking at your list, you are absolutely right that:

• 2009 "Baby Boilers" losing as a #5 to a #1 is not shocking.  It isn't even surprising.  
• 2010 losing as a #4 to a #1 is not shocking.  Given the injury, it is surprising they got that far.  
• 2017 losing as #4 to a #1 is not shocking.  Again, not even surprising.  
• 2018 losing as a #2 to a #3 is not shocking.  It isn't even an upset.  
• 2019 losing as a #3 to a #1 is not shocking.  Actually, it took a minor (3 over 2) upset just to get there.  

None of those five are individually surprising but, per @boilerbanger post, statistically one of those teams probably should have gotten through.  That collection is:

• One #2 seed, 21% chance to reach F4;
• One #3 seed, 11% chance to reach F4, 32% cumulative;
• Two #4 seeds, 9% chance to reach F4 each, 18% combined, 50% cumulative;
• One #5 seed, 5% chance to reach F4, 55% cumulative.  

So those five teams, given their seeds, should have had a slightly better than a coin-flip chance of one of them getting to the F4.  When you add in the 2011 and 2022 teams they absolutely should have a F4 under Painter by now.  That is rough.  

The strange thing is that I don't have any explanation.  When you look at Bo's postseason failures the simplest explanation is that the league just wasn't very good for most of his tenure and the fact that Ohio State struggled in the postseason at that same time that supports that argument.  I don't think that is all of it.  I think there were a few other things going on but that is certainly part of it.  

In the case of Purdue's postseason BB struggles that explanation doesn't work for two reasons:

• There is a lot more interleague play in the regular season so if the league just sucked, we'd know that based on regular season losses.  There have been good and bad years but overall this has been a very solid league for the roughly four decades of the current format.  
• Unlike Bo's postseason struggles which were accompanied by postseason football struggles by the league's other teams (I almost just said "team" rather than "teams" because I basically just mean tOSU), Purdue's postseason struggles have NOT been accompanied by similar struggles by the rest of the league.  

Since 1985 the league has won three NC's: One each by MSU, M, and IU.  The league has put 25 teams in the F4:

• 8 MSU teams
• 5 Michigan teams
• 3 each from Indiana, Ohio State, and Wisconsin
• 2 from Illinois
• 1 from Minnesota

With the exception of MSU, Purdue has been definitively better than each of those teams overall.  In that stretch (1985-present) Purdue has:

• 8 league titles, second only to MSU (11) and ahead of #3 tOSU and IU (7 each).  
• 28 NCAA Appearances, second only to MSU (31) and ahead of #3 IU (26).  
• 11 S16's, third behind MSU (16) and M (12) and ahead of #4 IU and UW (10 each).  

Purdue's rank within the league (includes UMD and their pre-B1G accomplishments):

• 2nd in league titles (behind MSU)
• 2nd in NCAA Appearances (behind MSU)
• 3rd in S16's (behind MSU and M)
• Tied for 6th/7th in E8's (tied with IL; behind MSU, M, tOSU, IU, and UW)
• Tied for last in F4's (tied with IA, PSU, UNL, RU, NU; behind MSU, M, IU, tOSU, UMD, IL, and MN).  
• Tied for last in NC's (tied with tOSU, UW, IL, MN, IA, PSU, UNL, RU, and NU; behind MSU, M, and IU).  

It is statistically incredibly improbable for a team to be as good as PU has been over the last ~40 years up through the first weekend of the Tournament and at the same time for that same team to be as bad as PU has been over the last ~40 years in the second weekend of the Tournament.  

FWIW:
Michigan, for whatever reason, is the anti-Purdue in this.  In the regular seasons since expansion they are fairly weak:

• 5 league titles trailing MSU (11), PU (8), tOSU and IU (7 each), and UW and IL (6 each).  
• 23 NCAA Appearances trailing MSU (31), PU (28), IU (26), UW and IL (24 each) and only barely ahead of UMD and tOSU (22 each).  

In spite of that, they are:

• Second behind only MSU (16) in S16's with 12
• Second behind only MSU (10) in E8's with 8
• Second behind only MSU (8) in F4's with 5
• Tied for best in the league with one NC (tied with MSU and IU).  

[betarhoalphadelta]

@medinabuckeye1 you want an explanation? Probably STARZZZZZZZ. Below is 247 rankings.

• 2022: 6th in the B1G, 30th nationally
• 2021: 8th in the B1G, 41st nationally
• 2020: 6th in the B1G, 36th nationally
• 2019: 8th in the B1G, 57th nationally
• 2018: 9th in the B1G, 49th nationally
• 2017: 4th in the B1G, 34th nationally
• 2016: 13th in the B1G, 108th(!) nationally
• 2015: 7th in the B1G, 37th nationally
• 2014: 5th in the B1G, 33rd nationally
• 2013: 4th in the B1G, 28th nationally
• 2012: 5th in the B1G, 16th nationally
• 2011: 12th in the B1G, 92nd nationally

247 doesn't go back beyond that. 

Now, you may argue that in basketball, part of your ranking is heavily based on class sizes and roster turnover (people leaving for the NBA) means a school like Purdue that recruits 4-year players will have smaller class sizes. But that also means that a school like Purdue is less successful at recruiting early NBA entrants, the sort of players capable of moving the needle in March. He's had two. Carsen Edwards was a HUGE portion of the reason that Purdue was a last-second miss away from the F4 in 2019. And Jaden Ivey was a HUGE portion of the reason Purdue was a 3 in 2022, but he didn't turn it on like Carsen when the lights were on. His .333 shooting percentage and going 1-6 from 3 when he was inarguably the most electric player on the court might have been the nail in the coffin vs St Peters.



But you look at those recruiting numbers, and maybe you start to feel like Keady and Painter were overachieving. Great coaching, but you can only work with what you've got. 

Michigan might be the anti-Purdue, but do you realize how many years during compiling the above data that I saw a big yellow M well above Purdue in the 247 B1G recruiting rankings? A lot. 

Hence why I'm out. What in those above numbers tells you this team is on the cusp of a Final Four? The HIGHEST Painter has ever recruited has been 4th. In the entire conference. 

[medinabuckeye1]

@medinabuckeye1 you want an explanation? Probably STARZZZZZZZ. Below is

This post shocks me. Purdue always seems to have a HUMONGOUS big that my team struggles (to put it mildly) to deal with. I would have assumed that those guys had lots of stars.

This is the best (only) explanation I've heard so certainly could be the case.

Parallels:
You always mention that UVA game. IMHO, the best Ohio State team I've ever seen, even better than the Oden/Connely team was the 2010/2011 team.

They went 29-2/16-2 and won the league. Then they won the BTT and got a #1 seed. They played their first weekend NCAA games in Cleveland. I went to the first weekend NCAA games and watched them obliterate UTSA then George Mason.

George Mason had recently gotten to the F4. Their fans were wearing "We are this year's George Mason" T-shirts and they were oddly arrogant. Seriously, they were a #8, tOSU was the #1 and they acted like they were the favorite.  Their team had knocked off so many higher seeds that the fans forgot that those are upsets not the norm.  Ohio State beat them by 30 in a game that wasn't even that close.

That team was just phenomenally loaded. Four starters averaged double digits (Sullinger, Burford, Diebler, Lighty). Going into the tournament I thought/hoped that they could go all the way because they had so many ways to attack. Diebler was the league's all-time leading 3-point shooter. Sullinger was a monster in the paint. Buford could rain long range shots or attack the rim. Lighty was good at everything. Craft was a great defender and distributor and made a shot once in a while.

In the S16 they ran into a #4 seeded Kentucky team that I felt was underseeded (they were ranked #11). Buford was the team's second-leading scorer and had a terrible game and none of the other starters or bench players stepped up and performed substantially above their average. Buford played 37 minutes and took 16 shots and he only made two more buckets than I got from my couch.

Despite Buford's awful night when the final buzzer sounded the ball was in the air and if it had dropped the Buckeyes would have advanced to the E8. That Kentucky team beat UNC in the E8 and lost by a point to UCONN in the F4. UCONN then beat Butler for the NC.

Despite only advancing to the S16, I believe that was the closest Ohio State has been to an NC in my lifetime. If they had survived Buford's rough night I honestly think that the rest of their road to the promised land would have been easier than that game. Oh well.

[Brutus Buckeye]

What's the farthest that each seed has gotten in the Big Ten Tourney, under the current bracket format?