Galloway out for IU is a major loss. If he was available, I would have put this game at 50/50. Without him, I'm thinking 10% chance, and that is mostly because IU will have more familiarity with the venue / rims.
The part that I bolded might seem ridiculous to newbies but we observed here that back in the 11-team era the #6 seed had a miraculous track record. They almost always beat the #11 on Thursday then went on to upset #3 on Friday.
Back then the format was:
Thursday:
- #6 vs #11
- #7 vs #10
- #8 vs #9
Friday:
- #1 vs 8/9
- #2 vs 7/10
- #3 vs 6/11
- #4 vs #5
In addition to #6 having a winning record against #3, the #8/9 winner was also surprisingly strong against #1 when one considers that #1 is always a MUCH better team. For example, Ohio State fans LOVE
this clip because it ends in a ridiculous buzzer-beater to beat TTUN but we really shouldn't be all that impressed with it because in that game the Buckeyes were the #1 seed playing the lowly #8 seeded Wolverines. Late-game heroics are always fun to watch but realistically they shouldn't have been necessary at all.
The running theory that I think most of us on here subscribe to is something like this:
- Teams in their first game tend to be below peak for various reasons including rust, unfamiliarity, nervousness, etc.
- Teams tend to peak in their second game as the first game issues have been put to rest and fatigue isn't a major factor yet.
- Teams in their third game in three days generally show signs of fatigue and therefore tend to be below peak.
- Teams in their fourth game in four days are EXHAUSTED. I'm not sure that I can think of a single example of one winning in the BTT. Part of this, of course, is also due to the fact that any team playing in their fourth game in four days is almost by definition going to be up against a VASTLY superior opponent.
- I don't think we've ever seen a team make it from Wednesday to the CG so the performance of a team in their fifth game in five days is, at least so far, only a theoretical proposition.
Our general theory to explain the strongly winning record of #6 over #3 was a few things:
- Second game.
- The gap between #3 and #6 generally isn't all that large. For example, this year it is two games, 12-8 vs 10-10.
- In a conference with 11 teams usually at least one of them is just downright awful (Michigan this year) so typically the #6 seed had a pretty easy go of things in their opener on Thursday which was more-or-less the best of both worlds. They got to play a real game but they didn't get severely tested and frequently could rest their starters for at least some of the game.
What makes this all interesting this year is that since neither of the Wednesday winners managed to win yesterday, all of the games today involve a superior team playing their first game against an inferior team playing their second game. Being in their second game *SHOULD* be an advantage which should offset the superiority/inferiority disparity and contribute to a higher than normal level of upsets. Today's games:
- #1 Purdue vs #8 Michigan State, Purdue was 7 games better.
- #2 Illinois vs #10 Ohio State, Illinois was 5 games better.
- #3 Nebraska vs #6 Indiana, Nebraska was 2 games better.
- #4 Northwestern vs #5 Wisconsin, Northwestern was 1 game better.
Nebraska and Northwestern weren't all that much better than their opponents and their opponents are playing in what *SHOULD* be their peak (second) game. The Spartans and Buckeyes have tougher hills to climb because they aren't quite as good and are playing better opponents but . . .
