2024-2025 B1G Basketball Thread

[OrangeAfroMan]

[FearlessF]

What Duke did on defense vs Alabama was nuts.  That's scary.  Even more than Houston holding Tennessee to 15 at the half. 

agreed

[MarqHusker]

I recognize I'm not keeping up on college hoops, but was Sampson the coach that was text happy at IU? 

[ELA]

I recognize I'm not keeping up on college hoops, but was Sampson the coach that was text happy at IU?

Yup.  And is probably the 2nd cleanest coach in the Final 4

[FearlessF]

the 2 young guns have dirt?

[ELA]

https://twitter.com/a_zinger/status/1906541890507551136

[FearlessF]

impressive

[medinabuckeye1]

This is a good thing.

I don't disagree, it was just surprising.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Have thought a lot about this thread's commentary, dating back through this month, discussing the combined impact of the NIL and Transfer Portal widening the gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots by eroding the mid-majors into a "glorified JuCo" status, as Norfolk State's head coach aptly phrases it. Where the NIL pockets of high-majors can buy experienced starters from the MAC, A-10, MTW, CUSA, etc. This siphoning off of both talent and experience across the mid-majors will lead to less upsets and Cinderella runs in the NCAA Tournament. We've talked more about this pertaining to football, but it's notable to see how the NIL/TP impact is playing out in college basketball as well. This year might be the first season where the full result is taking hold of the tournament. It was only two seasons ago that #1, #2, & #4 seeds lost in the first round.

Another area this is impacting is "bracket betting." Vegas Sports Books have always been able to count on upsets to diminish the potential winnings of the vast numbers of casual "bracket betters" submitting brackets that are mostly "chalk." This year the "chalkers" are set for higher than usual winnings, to the point that Vegas Sports Books are expecting to lose record amounts on "bracket betting" this March.


https://twitter.com/blake_levine/status/1904461541757350125

We spent a lot of time discussing this during the offseason.  The number of 13+ seeds to win at least one game started out relatively high, dropped in the 00's, then rose steadily to all-time highs in the late teens / early 2020's.  


My theory to explain the rise is that the increased volume of 3-point shooting makes the game more random because 3-point shooting is more random than post play.  Specifically:

• If I'm 6-2 and you are 6-6, you are 4" taller than me EVERY night.  There isn't a night where I'm suddenly taller than you.  It just is what it is and I'm almost always going to do worse in the paint than you are.  
• If you shoot 45% from three and I shoot 25% from three, statistically your bad nights will be worse than my good nights.  If we happen to play on a good night for me (40%) that also happens to be a bad night for you (30%) then I'll be a better shooter on THAT night and I'll beat you.  

I still think this is true but this year's tournament was, well:

[img width=500 height=332.983]https://i.imgur.com/PnNhNiT.png[/img]

My theory at this point is that the three point shooting does increase randomness but the Portal and NIL have completely overtaken that.  The rich have gotten richer such that the best teams are just ridiculously better.  At the same time, the poor have gotten poorer.  All (well ok, most) of the good players that in a previous era would have been playing for 12-seeds mid-major Champions, in this era have transferred and are now playing for top seeds.  

[medinabuckeye1]

I want to point out that the chalk thing isn't just the four #1 seeds in this F4 nor just the fact that the #13+ went 0-16 this year.  It is more than that, look at the paths that the #1 seeds took to get to the F4:

• 16-8-4-2 Houston's path was straight-up chalk
• 16-8-4-3 Florida's path was one seed off from chalk (#3 TxTech instead of #2 St. Johns)
• 16-9-4-2 Dook's path was one seed off from chalk (#9 Baylor instead of #8 MissSt)
• 16-9-5-2 Auburn's path was two seeds off from chalk (#5 Michigan instead of #4 aTm and #9 Creighton instead of #8 Louisville)

Here is where it gets weird.  #1's rarely get upset in the early rounds anyway so the lack of upsets in the early rounds this year *SHOULD* have meant MORE rather than less upsets in the later rounds. 

In the S16, some past #1's got a gift and only had to play a #12.  This year in the S16 the four #1 seeds played three #4 seeds and a #5.  Those #4's and #5's *SHOULD* have been more well equipped to knock off a #1 than a #12 would have been but yet those #4 and #5 seeds (Michigan, Zona, Purdue, Maryland) went 0-fer in the S16. 

Then in the E8, in the past a lot of #1 seeds got #6's, #7's, or even #10's or #11's.  This year's four #1 seeds played three #2's and a #3.  Those #2's and #3's *SHOULD* have been more well equipped to knock off a #1 than a #6, 7, 10, or 11 would have been but yet those #2's and #3's (MSU, Bama, TN, TxTech) went 0-fer in the E8. 

[medinabuckeye1]

If anybody wants to see it, here is the raw data to back all of that up:

I already filled in the results for the F4 because they are all #1 seeds so I already know that two #1 seeds will win the F4/semi-final games on Saturday and that a #1 seed will win the CG on Monday.  

Reading this top line:

• Seed 1 - this line is for #1 seeds
• R64 158 - 158 of 160 #1 seeds won their Tournament Opener
• R32 136 - 136 of 160 #1 seeds won their second Tournament game thus making the S16
• S16 107 - 107 of 160 #1 seeds won their S16 game thus making the E8
• E8 67 - 67 of 160 #1 seeds won their E8 game thus making the F4
• F4 42 - 42 of 160 #1 seeds won their Semi-Final, thus making the CG
• NF 26 - 26 of 160 #1 seeds win the NC
• Percent 65%, 65% of NC's have been #1 seeds
• Seed 1 - repeat
• R64 . . . . NF - Percent of #1 seeds to make it this far

[betarhoalphadelta]

In the S16, some past #1's got a gift and only had to play a #12.  This year in the S16 the four #1 seeds played three #4 seeds and a #5.  Those #4's and #5's *SHOULD* have been more well equipped to knock off a #1 than a #12 would have been but yet those #4 and #5 seeds (Michigan, Zona, Purdue, Maryland) went 0-fer in the S16. 

Then in the E8, in the past a lot of #1 seeds got #6's, #7's, or even #10's or #11's.  This year's four #1 seeds played three #2's and a #3.  Those #2's and #3's *SHOULD* have been more well equipped to knock off a #1 than a #6, 7, 10, or 11 would have been but yet those #2's and #3's (MSU, Bama, TN, TxTech) went 0-fer in the E8. 

Not necessarily disagreeing, but there were some of those S16 and E8 games that were, well, NOT lopsided. 

The only ones I was really paying close attention to (since I was on vacation) was Purdue/Houston and Florida/TTU. I actually think I threw Florida/TTU on the TV with only 30 seconds left before we left to go to dinner... Purdue was tied 60-60 with 2 seconds left in the game, and Florida was down pretty big late and had to have an epic comeback to win it close. 

I'm not sure whether any of the other S16 or E8 games were nailbiters. But I'd caution against too small of a sample size unless this becomes a bigger and bigger trend going forward the next 2-3 tournaments. 

[medinabuckeye1]

• 16-8-4-2 Houston's path was straight-up chalk
• 16-8-4-3 Florida's path was one seed off from chalk (#3 TxTech instead of #2 St. Johns)
• 16-9-4-2 Dook's path was one seed off from chalk (#9 Baylor instead of #8 MissSt)
• 16-9-5-2 Auburn's path was two seeds off from chalk (#5 Michigan instead of #4 aTm and #9 Creighton instead of #8 Louisville)

Historical comparison for the #1 seeds over the 40 Tournaments since expansion (1985-2025 no 2020):
Second Round:

• 47.50% #8 seeds
• 25.50% #9 seeds

This one was normal, roughly 2 and 2

S16:

• 48.13% #4 seeds
• 34.38% #5 seeds
• 13.75% #12 seeds
• 3.75% #13 seeds

On average that is 2 #4's, one #5, and one #12 or 13.  This year none of the #1's got a relatively easy S16 game against a #12 or #13

E8:

• 45.00% #2 seeds
• 25.63% #3 seeds
• 10.63% #6 seeds
• 6.25% #7 seeds
• 5.63% #10 seeds
• 6.25% #11 seeds
• 0.63% #15 seeds

On average that is two #2's, one #3, and one 6, 7, 10, 11, or 15.  This year none of the #1's got a relatively easy E8 game against a #6 or below. 

[medinabuckeye1]

Not necessarily disagreeing, but there were some of those S16 and E8 games that were, well, NOT lopsided.

The only ones I was really paying close attention to (since I was on vacation) was Purdue/Houston and Florida/TTU. I actually think I threw Florida/TTU on the TV with only 30 seconds left before we left to go to dinner... Purdue was tied 60-60 with 2 seconds left in the game, and Florida was down pretty big late and had to have an epic comeback to win it close.

I'm not sure whether any of the other S16 or E8 games were nailbiters. But I'd caution against too small of a sample size unless this becomes a bigger and bigger trend going forward the next 2-3 tournaments.

This is a very good point.  I was actually going to discuss the sample size issue anyway so here goes:

 @betarhoalphadelta makes a great point.  This was only ONE tournament.  Maybe this was random.  Also, this isn't the first time and the #13+ went 0-16, that also happened in 2017, 2007, 2004, and 1994.  In total 69 #13+ have won at least one game in the Tournament consisting of:

• 33 #13's
• 23 #14's
• 11 #15's
• 2 #16's

That 69 in 40 Tournaments works out to 1.725 per Tournament.  In a way the sample-size isn't the 16 games it is the two (or so) that the 13+ typically win so our sample size here is REALLY small.  Maybe next year we'll have four of them again like we did in 2021 (all-time high).  

As far as close games, I don't make any effort to track that for multiple reasons.  One reason is that it is a LOT more data to try to keep track of.  Another reason is that "close game" isn't as simple and straight-forward of a thing to define as it might seem.  We've all seen BB games where a team was behind by a small amount but missed everything down the stretch while the team ahead made 10 straight FT's to end up winning by 12 or games where the team ahead took their starters out and the trailing team outscored the winner's backups 20-4 down the stretch to make a blowout into a 6 point game.  

Even the Florida game that you referenced ended up with UF winning by five.  According to the Worldwide Leader, TxTech's win probability topped out at 94.9% when they had a nine point lead (73-64) with just under four minutes remaining.  

Another reason that I make no effort to track lopsidedness is that I don't think it matters overall.  At least one the sample is large enough the lopsided games and close games are going to cancel each other out.  However, looking at just ONE Tournament this is an issue.  If TxTech manages to protect a nine point lead that should have been insurmountable and Purdue manages to win a game that they were within one possession of at the 00:02 mark then things are a lot different.  #1 seeds Florida and Houston are gone replaced by #3 TxTech and either #4 Purdue or #2 Tennessee.