My own team is pathetically bad for the second consecutive year, fighting with the Wolverines for second-to-last in the league, and just generally depressing to watch so I decided to look at Purdue's NCAA Tournament history under Painter.
It is something of a thing to call out Purdue's NCAA Tournament failures but being the data-driven guy that I am, my starting point is to ask just how bad (or good) is Purdue's Tournament performance relative to a reasonable expectation. So first, here is Purdue's NCAA Tournament history under HC Matt Painter:
- 2007, #9 seed: Beat #8 lost to #1
- 2008, #6 seed: Beat #11, lost to #3
- 2009, #5 seed: Beat #12, beat #4, lost to #1
- 2010, #4 seed: Beat #13, beat #5, lost to #1
- 2011, #3 seed: Beat #14, lost to #11
- 2012, #10 seed: Beat #7, lost to #2
- 2015, #9 seed: Lost to #8
- 2016, #5 seed: Lost to #12
- 2017, #4 seed: Beat #13, beat #5, lost to #1
- 2018, #2 seed: Beat #15, beat #10, lost to #3
- 2019, #3 seed: Beat #14, beat #6, beat #2, lost to #1
- 2021, #4 seed: Lost to #13
- 2022, #3 seed: Beat #14, beat #6, lost to #15
- 2023, #1 seed: Lost to #16
This is Painter's 19th season and in the previous 18 seasons he made 14 NCAA Tournament appearances with the exceptions being his first year, his eighth and ninth years, and the COVID year when there was no Tournament. In those 14 appearances his teams have gone 17-14 made up of:
- 10-4 in the first round
- 6-4 in the second round
- 1-5 in the S16
- 0-1 in the E8
Looked at another way, here is how Painter's teams have done against each seed:
- vs #1, 0-5
- vs #2, 1-1
- vs #3, 0-2
- vs #4, 1-0
- vs #5, 2-0
- vs #6, 2-0
- vs #7, 1-0
- vs #8, 1-1
- vs #10, 1-0
- vs #11, 1-1
- vs #12, 1-1
- vs #13, 2-1
- vs #14, 3-0
- vs #15, 1-1
- vs #16, 0-1
I think part of the reason this gets so much attention is the timing. Bad losses happen to everyone but Painter's worst three NCAA losses have ended the last three seasons.
I think it is a common mistake to look at the NCAA Tournament and just blanket assume that the higher seed should always win. By that metric, here are Painter's upsets (good and bad):
- 2007, beat #8 as #9
- 2009, beat #4 as #5
- 2011, lost to #11 as #3
- 2012, beat #7 as #10
- 2016, lost to #12 as #5
- 2018, lost to #3 as #2
- 2019, beat #3 as #2
- 2021, lost to #13 as #4
- 2022, lost to #15 as #3
- 2023, lost to #16 as #1
Even by that metric, Painter has done pretty well with four upsets of others and six times being upset. This also isn't a fair way to judge tournament success because the better (higher seeded) team doesn't always win. Maybe they *SHOULD* but there are obviously going to be upsets and since our teams are almost always the higher seed in the first round, our teams are naturally going to get upset more often than they upset someone else.
IMHO, the more "fair" way to assess Tournament performance is to compare to the averages for the seeds that you had. At Purdue Painter has had:
- 1 #1 seed (2023)
- 1 #2 seed (2018
- 3 #3 seeds (2022, 2019, 2011)
- 3 #4 seeds (2021, 2017, 2010)
- 2 #5 seeds (2016, 2009)
- 1 #6 seed (2008)
- 2 #9 seeds (2015, 2007)
- 1 #10 seed (2012)
Here is what those seeds achieve on average with what Painter's Purdue teams have actually achieved listed next to that:
- 10.2 first round wins, 10
- 5.7 second round wins, 6
- 2.7 S16 wins, 1
- 1.4 E8 wins, 0
- 0.7 Semi-Final wins, 0
- 0.3 NC's, 0
Even with first round losses as a #1 and a #4 within the last three years, Painter's Purdue teams are still almost dead on the average in first round games and he is ahead of average in second round games. After that things are not so good. The seeds that Painter has achieved *SHOULD* have put 2-3 teams into the E8 and Painter has 1. They *SHOULD* have put 1-2 teams in the F4 and Painter has none. They should have put a team in the NCG as well.
@betarhoalphadelta has pointed out that some of their problem is bad luck. Painter's five S16 losses came:
- Three times to #1 seeds
- Once to a #3 seed
- Once to a #15 seed.
Even ignoring the loss to a #15 (as a #3 that *should* have been playing #2 there), it really isn't all that unlucky to have all three of your #4/5 seed S16 teams face #1. At Purdue, Painter has had three #4/5 seeds make the S16 and all three faced #1 when they got there but that isn't unlucky, that is just normal.
If you are a #4/5/12/13 and you reach the S16, there is a nearly 85% chance that the team on the other end of the court WILL BE a #1 seed. You will only luck into #8 or #9 roughly once every six trips and so far no #16 has ever gotten that far. If it gets to six #4/5 seeds making the S16 and all six facing #1, THEN you can say that is unlucky as the averages say that in six trips as #4/5 you should face #8/9 once but it still isn't all that unlikely to end up with 6/6 facing #1.
In Painter's 18 seasons (14 Tournaments), the Boilermakers have only played three NCAA Tournament games against any team other than the highest possible seed to face in that round. The problem, to the extent that there is one, is that when Purdue DID luck into an easier than expected game they failed to take advantage. They are only 1-2 when getting an easier than expected opponent:
- 2011: As a #3 seed Purdue lucked into #11 rather than #6 in the second round and lost anyway.
- 2018: As a #2 seed Purdue lucked into #10 rather than #7 in the second round and won.
- 2022: As a #3 seed Purdue lucked into #15 rather than #2 (or for that matter #7 or #10) in the S16 and lost anyway.
The first two are no big deal. #10 and #11 typically upset #7 and #6 almost 40% of the time and playing #10 or 11 rather than #6 or 7 isn't THAT big of an advantage. The third one is different. As a #3 seed there is less than a one in 37 chance of facing #15 in the S16. That is a massive stroke of good fortune and you just HAVE to take advantage. Who does #3 typically face in the S16:
- 95 times out of 152 the team on the other end of the court was #2, those #2 seeds went 68-27
- 29 times out of 152 the team on the other end of the court was #7, those #7 seeds went 10-19
- 24 times out of 152 the team on the other end of the court was #10, those #10 seeds went 9-15
- 4 times out of 152 the team on the other end of the court was #15, those #15 seeds went 1-3
Purdue isn't the only team to ever lose to a #15 seed but they are the only team to ever lose to any team seeded lower than #12 after the first weekend. In the S16:
- #13's are 0-6
- #14's are 0-2
- #15's are 1-3 (win over PU)
- #16's have never played a second weekend game
In the E8:
#13 and below are:
- 67-541 in the first round - Yeah they get some upsets but almost 90% of these games end up as expected.
- 12-55 in the second round - The vast majority of the few that win their opener run out of magic in game #2.
- 1-11 in the S16 - 12 times a team has been lucky enough to face #13-#15 in the S16. 11 of them cashed in and sailed into the E8 . . .
- 0-1 in the E8 - Even this one time, Cinderella's run still ended before the F4.