2023-2024 B1G Basketball Thread

[847badgerfan]

That said, I'd love to see them enter the House of Boo and get a win against Purdue.

[MaximumSam]

Man, Sparty can't get the jank worked out

[ELA]

Certainly not on the road when you shoot 41% on FTs.

Walker re-injuring his groin is even more concerning

[medinabuckeye1]

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:

• #15's are 0-1

#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.  

[ELA]

I think it's more that it goes all the way back to Keady.  And it's not that Painter can't coach in the tournament, they just have to have the most lopsided regular season to postseason success.

Since Gene Keady's first Big Ten title in 1984, Purdue has won 10 Big Ten titles.  In that same time, only Michigan State (11), has more.  Ohio State has 9, Indiana has 7, Wisconsin has 6, Michigan has 5.

Purdue has advanced out of the first weekend 11 times in 30 tourney trips, to the Elite 8 3 times, and to the Final Four never.  In 40 years.  To compare:

MSU has advanced out of the first weekend 18 times in 32 trips, to the Elite 8 10 times, and the Final Four 8 times, and won a title.
OSU has advanced out of the first weekend 8 times in 22 trips, to the Elite 8 5 times, and to the Final Four 3 times
Indiana has advanced out of the first weekend 11 times in 28 trips, to the Elite 8 5 times, the Final 4 3 times, and won a title
Wisconsin has advanced out of the first weekend 10 times in 24 trips, to the Elite 8 4 times, and to the Final 4 3 times
Michigan has advanced out of the first weekend 11 times in 23 trips, to the Elite 8 7 times, the Final 4 3 times, and won a title

I think those are the pretty clear top 6 programs over that 40 year period.  Among the group, Purdue accounts for 20.8% of the Big Ten titles, and 18.8% of the tournament bids.  But just 15.9% of Sweet 16s, 8.8% of the Elite 8s, and zero of the 20 Final Fours or 3 national championships.

I think Elite 8s to conference titles is probably the best ratio.  It's two totally different things, but I think about equal rarity.  You have 6 power conferences, but in some of those years you have shared titles, so you figure there are ~8 Power 6 conference champs in a year.  So if you field that many conference title teams, I would expect your Elite 8 trips to about be the same, with the overachieving teams balancing out the underachieving team, over 40 years, you would figure just by chance that 10 conference titles and 30 tournament trips would result in close to 10 Elite 8 trips.

[847badgerfan]

Wisconsin is on a 2 game skid, going into Ann Arbor where they are desperate. There is no love lost between these two teams, due to Howard.

I hope the boys come to play today.

[betarhoalphadelta]

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.

Yeah, and I viewed 2022 as the year that broke me as a fan. As you point out, being a 4/5 and running into a 1 isn't "bad luck", rather it's the expected outcome. If anything, the biggest issue is that it's a "lack of getting lucky", not bad luck.

2011 hurts more than you think. Not because we ran into a buzzsaw of a VCU team that beat us (and made the F4) despite being an 11 seed, but that in our portion of the bracket, 10-seed FSU also advanced beating the #2 seed and would have been who we faced in the S16. That would have set up well for Painter's first trip past the S16, or at the very least to be favored in that game. Losing to a 1 as a 4/5 is fine... Failing to take advantage of a "broken bracket" feels like a missed opportunity. 

2018 was one of the "bad luck" years... We were a 2 seed but lost Isaac Haas in the opening round to a broken elbow. He was a matchup nightmare for opposing teams.  We survived #10 Butler and then faced #3 TTU. Granted, TTU under Beard is the type of roster that probably still would have given us fits, but I think we all knew as fans that without Haas, we were screwed. He was too important to our team. 

But 2022 was hell. If you want to talk about "broken bracket", that was the year. Not only were we facing the #15 instead of the #2, the #1 was already knocked out on the other side of the bracket. So it came down to the #4 and #8 seeds, and it was the #8 seed that advanced. So all we had to do was knock off the #15, and we would be a #3 facing a #8 for our first Final Four appearance in 42 years. 

So both 2011 and 2022 were squandered opportunities. 

[medinabuckeye1]

I think Elite 8s to conference titles is probably the best ratio.  It's two totally different things, but I think about equal rarity.  You have 6 power conferences, but in some of those years you have shared titles, so you figure there are ~8 Power 6 conference champs in a year.  So if you field that many conference title teams, I would expect your Elite 8 trips to about be the same, with the overachieving teams balancing out the underachieving team, over 40 years, you would figure just by chance that 10 conference titles and 30 tournament trips would result in close to 10 Elite 8 trips.

I'm using a slightly different timeframe (1985-2023) and giving credit to UMD and RU for league titles in prior leagues but from 1985-2023 the current B1G teams won 58 league titles and made the E8 42 times so your ratio is pretty close.  League titles are typically more frequent then E8's but not as frequent as S16's:

The glaring outliers are Purdue and Michigan.  Purdue has WAY less E8's than you would expect for a team that is second in league titles and third in S16's.  Michigan has WAY more E8's than you would expect for a team that is 7th in league titles:

• Michigan is second in E8's but only 7th in league titles.  
• Purdue is second in league titles but only tied for 6th/7th in E8's.  

Illinois is a tad unusual in having as many titles as S16's.  Minnesota is unusual in having more E8's than titles but it is such a small sample size that it should just be attributed to that.  Purdue isn't a small sample size.  They have nine league titles (2nd behind only MSU) and 11 S16's (third behind only MSU and M) but the expected E8's just aren't there.  

Purdue and Michigan are complete opposites on this.  Purdue has an odd lack of success in March for as good as they've been the rest of the year while Michigan has an odd amount of success for being relatively mediocre the rest of the year.  If you combined the best from Purdue and Michigan you'd have a very close #2 to MSU's #1:
League titles:

• MSU is #1 with 11
• PU is right there at #2 with 9

NCAA Appearances:

• MSU is #1 with 32
• PU is right there at #2 with 29

S16's:

• MSU is #1 with 17
• M is #2 with 12 (this is the crossover point, PU is really close to M at #3 with 11)

E8's:

• MSU is #1 with 10
• M is right there at #2 with 8

F4's:

• MSU is #1 with 8
• M is #2 with 5

NC's:

• MSU, M, IU, and UMD have one each

Instead we have MSU as a clear #1 followed by a jumble of M, PU, IU, UMD, tOSU, UW, and IU as obviously #2 through #8 collectively but we could argue all day about the order.  

[bayareabadger]

When I think about broken brackets, I think of the 2012-13 Badgers. They had a dreadful offense, great defense and penchant for upsets.

Coming into the tournament, there were rumblings it was vulnerable. The 4 in UW’s pod was out in the first round, and the 1 was out in the second. Plus the 3 and 7 ate it coming out of the other side. 

Of course, UW caught a 5/12 upset while shooting 25 percent. OSU made the Elite 8, with a very nice, but maybe not GREAT team. But caught an upset to Wichita State, which was a damn thing on the old board. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I'm using a slightly different timeframe (1985-2023) and giving credit to UMD and RU for league titles in prior leagues but from 1985-2023 the current B1G teams won 58 league titles and made the E8 42 times so your ratio is pretty close.  League titles are typically more frequent then E8's but not as frequent as S16's:

The glaring outliers are Purdue and Michigan.  Purdue has WAY less E8's than you would expect for a team that is second in league titles and third in S16's.  Michigan has WAY more E8's than you would expect for a team that is 7th in league titles:

• Michigan is second in E8's but only 7th in league titles. 
• Purdue is second in league titles but only tied for 6th/7th in E8's. 

Illinois is a tad unusual in having as many titles as S16's.  Minnesota is unusual in having more E8's than titles but it is such a small sample size that it should just be attributed to that.  Purdue isn't a small sample size.  They have nine league titles (2nd behind only MSU) and 11 S16's (third behind only MSU and M) but the expected E8's just aren't there. 

Purdue and Michigan are complete opposites on this.  Purdue has an odd lack of success in March for as good as they've been the rest of the year while Michigan has an odd amount of success for being relatively mediocre the rest of the year.  If you combined the best from Purdue and Michigan you'd have a very close #2 to MSU's #1:
League titles:

• MSU is #1 with 11
• PU is right there at #2 with 9

NCAA Appearances:

• MSU is #1 with 32
• PU is right there at #2 with 29

S16's:

• MSU is #1 with 17
• M is #2 with 12 (this is the crossover point, PU is really close to M at #3 with 11)

E8's:

• MSU is #1 with 10
• M is right there at #2 with 8

F4's:

• MSU is #1 with 8
• M is #2 with 5

NC's:

• MSU, M, IU, and UMD have one each

Instead we have MSU as a clear #1 followed by a jumble of M, PU, IU, UMD, tOSU, UW, and IU as obviously #2 through #8 collectively but we could argue all day about the order. 

I sincerely worry that this is another example of trying to suss out a "narrative" based on randomness. 

The better idea would be to look at this very, very simply. We have 42 E8s as a conference and 90 S16s. Which makes a lot of sense statistically, that half the teams that make it to the S16 also advance to the E8, so over a large sample size you expect the entire conference to be near .500.

So when you look at those top programs:

• MSU: 17/2 is 8.5, and they have 10 E8s. That's 1.5 game above .500
• Michigan: 2 games above .500
• Indiana: 1 game below .500
• Maryland: 2.5 games below .500
• Ohio State: 1 game above .500
• Wisconsin: 1 game below .500
• Illinois: Exactly at .500
• Minnesota: 0.5 games above .500
• Purdue: 2.5 games below .500
• Iowa: 0.5 games below .500
• Penn State: 0.5 games below .500

Out of 11 programs, only three are 2 or more games outside of "expectation". And MSU isn't even one of them. 

Isn't that pretty damn close to the sort of distribution we'd expect if this was just all random chance? 

[ELA]

Well that is simply judging teams ability to win Sweet 16 games.  So yes, that makes sense.

We are comparing regular season success to postseason success.  You would expect conference title distribution to somewhat replicate Elite 8 distribution.  And I went back to Keady's first title, so it's 10 titles.  Every other team is +/- 3.  Purdue is -7

[betarhoalphadelta]

Well that is simply judging teams ability to win Sweet 16 games.  So yes, that makes sense.

We are comparing regular season success to postseason success.  You would expect conference title distribution to somewhat replicate Elite 8 distribution.  And I went back to Keady's first title, so it's 10 titles.  Every other team is +/- 3.  Purdue is -7

Fair point. Although I think it's mainly on Keady, not Painter...

Keady wasn't getting to the S16 often enough. He had 6 league titles in 25 years, but only 5 times made the S16, 83% as many appearances as league titles.

Painter has 4 league titles in 18 years, but has been to the S16 a total of 6 times, 150% as many as league titles.

Painter has about 70% of the duration as Purdue's coach as Keady, which is roughly reflected in their conference titles (66%), but is reversed in their S16 appearances (120%). 
 

[ELA]

Yeah, and that's why I went back to Keady.  And it's not a Purdue sucks in the tournament take.  It's more that relative to their high regular season performance, they have underachieved in the tourney 

[ELA]

Purdue may have the Big Ten title wrapped up even earlier than expected