2025-2026 B1G Basketball Thread

[medinabuckeye1]

Yep. For Purdue, making the tournament is a minimum standard as well.

Painter had a four year stretch (07-08 through 10-11) where he finished first or second in the B1G. In those four years he made the S16 twice despite losing Hummel to season-ending injury twice. He was a young coach and was clearly a winner.

Then he missed the tourney two years in a row, was on the hot seat, and fans wanted him gone.

I firmly believe that the only reason he kept his job is that I think he went in to the AD and said "Here are the mistakes that I think I've made that got us here, and here is my plan to fix those mistakes." But a third year I'm 100% sure would have tanked him.

You just don't miss the tournament at programs like this. And if you do, you sure as HELL don't do it twice in a row.

To fill in info on Ohio State / Matta, there did not appear to be anything equivalent to what you explained between Painter and the Purdue AD.  Then Matta swung and missed on a few recruits and it just appeared that things were not going to turn around and that was that.  

With Holtmann there wasn't as much leash because he didn't have any notable accomplishments prior to his missed Tournaments.  Painter had those good years BEFORE he missed two straight.  Matta had an even higher level of success* so when he missed a couple Tournaments I think the AD would/should have given him time to get right except that it just didn't look like there was any kind of plan.  

*Matta's success:
Matta started at Ohio State for the 2004/5 season.  They didn't go to the Tournament his first year but they did have a HUMONGOUS upset win over previously undefeated and #1 ranked Illinois in the last game of the regular season.  Then, he had a 10 year run that would be good even at a Blue Blood (years are ending/Tournament year):

• 2006:  B1G Champs, NCAA R32
• 2007:  B1G Champs, B1G Tournament Champs, NCAA CG
• 2008:  NIT Champs - We got screwed not getting a NCAA bid but made the best of it.  
• 2009:  NCAA
• 2010:  B1G Champs, B1G Tournament Champs, S16
• 2011:  B1G Champs, B1G Tournament Champs, S16
• 2012:  B1G Champs, F4
• 2013:  B1G Tournament Champs, E8
• 2014:  NCAA
• 2015:  R32

In ten years that is:

• 5 B1G Championships
• 4 B1G Tournament Championships
• 9 NCAA Appearances (and an NIT Championship the year we got screwed)
• 5 S16's including four straight from 2010-2013
• 3 E8's
• 2 F4's
• 1 NCAA CG Appearance

After the 2012/13 season I truly believed that we (Ohio State) had found what I refer to as "our Izzo".  Matta was still under 50 and I thought he was a guy who would lead us to the promised land (Ohio State hasn't won a BB NC since Bobby Knight was a backup on the 1960 team) and keep our program among the best in the nation for decades.  

Then things deteriorated.  The Buckeyes were middling in the league the next three seasons (5th, 6th, 7th place finishes).  They still made the Tournament the first two of those years but they were one-and-done in 2014 and 1-1 in 2015.  Then they missed the Tournament altogether in 2016 and in 2017 they weren't even in the bubble conversation and it was all over.  

[medinabuckeye1]

*Matta's success:

Reminiscing because I'm missing it because Ohio State BB has been crap for a decade now:

Matta's best two teams in terms of banners were clearly the Oden/Conley NCG team in 2006/07 and the F4 team in 2011/12.  Both of those teams won the B1G Regular season title (2011/12 was a co-Championship) and they both made it to the B1G Tournament CG with the 06/7 team winning and the 11/12 team losing. Matta also had an E8 team in 2013 that was pretty good.  

The teams above were good and had deeper NCAA runs but I will always believe that Matta's best team was the 2010/11 team.  They finished the regular season 29-2/16-2 and won the B1G by two games over Purdue.  Their only losses were both on the road to the B1G's second (Purdue) and third (Wisconsin) place teams.  Not only that but they avenged both losses handily at home:

• They lost in Mackey by 13 but beat Purdue in Columbus by 23
• They lost in the Kohl Center by four but beat Wisconsin in Columbus by 28

The team then won the B1G Tournament and entered the NCAA Tournament at #1 in the polls at 32-2.  

Something that @SuperMario asked about recently, these were the NCAA games that I attended in Cleveland.  Ohio State just obliterated #16 UT-San Antonio in the first round and #8 George Mason in the second round.  

Funny story about GMU:
George Mason had made a deep run to the F4 as a #11 seed in the 2006 NCAA Tournament.  At the arena in Cleveland a few years later in 2011 for the NCAA opening round games a lot of the George Mason fans were wearing T-Shirts that had "We are this year's George Mason" printed on them.  It was a neat idea for a T-shirt but their fans were oddly confident for considering their second round opponent was the #1 team in the nation.  Going into the second round game between Ohio State and George Mason the impression I got from the GMU fans was that they not only thought that their team could win, but they seemed to think it was reasonably likely that their team WOULD win.  Ohio State just beat the living daylights out of them.  The Buckeyes literally doubled them up in the first half and led 52-26 at halftime.  Then the Buckeyes played a motley collection of backups, walk-ons, mascots, and cheerleaders in the second half and still outscored them 46-40 en-route to a 32 point 98-66 win.  

The Kentucky loss in the 2011 NCAA Tournament is probably the most painful tOSU BB loss for me because that team could have won it all.  In the S16 they just couldn't shoot.  Some of that is a credit to Kentucky's defense, of course.  Obviously Kentucky's defense was a bit better than George Mason's but the Buckeyes missed plenty of open looks as well.  In spite of an unbelievably bad shooting night, the Buckeyes had a shot in the air to win the game at the buzzer.  Unfortunately that shot missed and that ended the season for what was, IMHO Matta's best team and quite possibly the best team ever at Ohio State.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

To fill in info on Ohio State / Matta, there did not appear to be anything equivalent to what you explained between Painter and the Purdue AD.  Then Matta swung and missed on a few recruits and it just appeared that things were not going to turn around and that was that. 

With Holtmann there wasn't as much leash because he didn't have any notable accomplishments prior to his missed Tournaments.  Painter had those good years BEFORE he missed two straight.  Matta had an even higher level of success* so when he missed a couple Tournaments I think the AD would/should have given him time to get right except that it just didn't look like there was any kind of plan. 

Full disclosure: I have no inside knowledge. I'm going based on what I saw, and a lot of what was reported on the Purdue fan blogs at the time.

IMHO what I think Painter did is admit not that he'd missed on recruits--but he'd hit on the wrong ones. For as young as he was, Painter is an old-school coach. Doesn't suffer fools or prima donnas. Some of his public statements around that time was that he'd chased STARZ instead of trusting his gut and finding "Purdue guys". Which then got him pilloried by the portion of the fandom that worried he'd self-ceiling'd the program by not setting his recruiting sights on the guys who could really move the needle. 

I think it's also possible that he could have leaned on the distraction of his divorce during those two seasons, which was a situation that was already concluding. 

I obviously don't know the Matta situation, but he was a lot older AFAIK. I don't know if he would have gone to the AD with a sense of contrition, like it's believed Painter did. And obviously Matta didn't have the OSU legacy sort of thing that Painter did, who played under Keady and was basically picked as the "heir in waiting" for Keady at an age FAR younger than you'd ever expect a Purdue coach to take the reins. I do think that had something to do with it... Like a "we invested in you knowing you were young and not experienced, so we'll accept that you're learning from your mistakes--just don't let it happen again" sort of thing. Matta likely wouldn't have been offered the same grace by a school as he didn't have the personal history to warrant it. 

[SFBadger96]

All makes me feel better about Wisconsin...although I would like to see them advance beyond the second round.

[ELA]

Yeah , making the NIT/NCAA is about as difficult as making a bowl.  But in football the cut line is higher.  Making an NCAA tournament is worth a lot more than an NIT.  But everything under the CFP is about the same.  If you have three straight 8-4 seasons, thats essentially the same as threee straight 6-6 seasons.  But that essentially the difference between three straight second round exits and three straoght NITs

[bayareabadger]

If you have three straight 8-4 seasons, thats essentially the same as threee straight 6-6 seasons.  

In terms of raw outcome, that’s probably true. In terms of general program vibe/coach security at most programs, I bet it’s not. 

[OrangeAfroMan]

Someone needs to show this quote about college basketball do the decision-makers in college football. 
It's from Jay Bilas' article about how he got flack for picking all #1 seeds this year, even knowing that it's almost never all #1 seeds.  
He's an expert and/or spends tons of time on it and knows it's unlikely, but felt they'd all make it to the Final 4.  But he also knows we're LUCKY to have the four best teams in it.  He knows it rarely happens and that the formatting pushes against it.

Why in the holy hell devise a system in which you're LUCKY to have the best 4 teams playing it off to determine the champion?!?  Why would you ever copy such a system?!?  This is a fantastic argument against it.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Why in the holy hell devise a system in which you're LUCKY to have the best 4 teams playing it off to determine the champion?!?  

How are you sure that the four #1 seeds are the best 4 teams? 

After all, you criticize pollsters all the time for merely arranging teams by number of losses. That includes the CFP committee, who are all supposed to be experts. You just assume that the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee is infallable and the four #1 seeds are always the best four teams in the tournament?

What if a #2 or #3 seed is actually a better team, but ran through a rough stretch during the regular season, and didn't have the resume to be a #1? Is it a travesty if they actually win the tournament because they weren't a #1 seed coming into it? 

And if you *do* think the Selection Committee is infallible, why have a tournament at all? Why not declare the top #1 seed the national champion? After all, if they can be completely trusted to know who the best 4 teams are, why can't they be trusted to know who the best 1 team is? 

[OrangeAfroMan]

How are you sure that the four #1 seeds are the best 4 teams?

After all, you criticize pollsters all the time for merely arranging teams by number of losses. That includes the CFP committee, who are all supposed to be experts. You just assume that the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee is infallable and the four #1 seeds are always the best four teams in the tournament?

What if a #2 or #3 seed is actually a better team, but ran through a rough stretch during the regular season, and didn't have the resume to be a #1? Is it a travesty if they actually win the tournament because they weren't a #1 seed coming into it?

And if you *do* think the Selection Committee is infallible, why have a tournament at all? Why not declare the top #1 seed the national champion? After all, if they can be completely trusted to know who the best 4 teams are, why can't they be trusted to know who the best 1 team is?

Well, when you have them seeded, that's one thing.  Then you get an expert picking them to all advance, because he views them as the best teams, and that's pretty good. So a group (committee) + expert(s) in agreement.  Those seedings and predictions are based on a full season of 35 games or so.  Maybe just have the 1-seeds play it off (hey, we had that in football!)
Your idea about crowning a national champion without a tournament is a great idea.  Thank you.
vs
having a massive tournament in which upsets are inevitable.  6 rounds of 1-off games to advance.  
Cinderellas, buzzer-beaters, exciting stuff.
And it's precisely what Bilas says it is:  a spectacle

It's not a good method of which to determine the best team.  It's a good method to get attention.  
No, college football should not mimic it.

[FearlessF]

attention is the goal

[betarhoalphadelta]

Well, when you have them seeded, that's one thing.  Then you get an expert picking them to all advance, because he views them as the best teams, and that's pretty good. So a group (committee) + expert(s) in agreement.  Those seedings and predictions are based on a full season of 35 games or so.  Maybe just have the 1-seeds play it off (hey, we had that in football!)

All I'm saying is that you think obviously this year it was right. But what about last year. Only two #1 seeds made it the Final Four. Only three #1 or #2 seeds advanced to the Elite Eight. Yet 12 of the #1-4 seeds made it to the Sweet Sixteen... So clearly the earlier rounds were mostly chalk.

Is that an indication that the tournament is broken because two of them didn't advance? Or is it perhaps evidence that maybe the selection committee is NOT quite good enough at this to say that we should just have the four #1 seeds duke it out and leave everyone else out of it? Maybe with ~330 teams that mostly don't play each other, it's not exactly easy to identify the four best teams?

Your idea about crowning a national champion without a tournament is a great idea.  Thank you.

I'd love it in football. Make it a beauty pageant. I'm cool with that.

Sad it'll never happen, and it's going the wrong direction. That's one area we can agree.

[OrangeAfroMan]

All I'm saying is that you think obviously this year it was right. But what about last year. Only two #1 seeds made it the Final Four. Only three #1 or #2 seeds advanced to the Elite Eight. Yet 12 of the #1-4 seeds made it to the Sweet Sixteen... So clearly the earlier rounds were mostly chalk.

Is that an indication that the tournament is broken because two of them didn't advance? 

It's a combination of imperfect seeding, sure, but also that upsets are inevitable.  
Fewer games = fewer upsets

The seedings are what they are, but at least they're based on a sample size of 35 games.  The sin is in having 1-game rounds to determine a champion.  When you're getting 8 seeds and 11 seeds making final 4s, that's less about seeding and more about the 1-game-and-you're-out design of the damn thing.

All I'm saying is that college basketball has a very poor system for determining it's champion, attention be damned, and that college football should obviously not copy it.

[ELA]

He was never going to work out at Michigan State. In my opinion, he's not a P4 player. Far too soft. My kid, who is 6'5" and was an excellent, albeit not very athletic, high school player kicked Booker's ass just by being tough and physical with him. When undersized, small school high school players push you around, it doesn't bode well for Big Ten success. He should go somewhere like Butler or Loyola and be a solid rotation player.

Wow, UCLA for $1.5 million.  Good for him.  Maybe he figures it out, but Mick Cronin doesn't seem like the type who doesn't care if his bigs rebound or defend

[ELA]

Michigan lands the #1 player out of the portal, a big from UAB.

Dusty May said he didn't want to run a portal program, but the problem is now, how can you not when you take a new job?  He said he had to lean on the portal this year, or he wouldn't have had a roster, which is true.  But unless you commit to tough times, and building from scratch, once you make that first team a portal team, you need to keep going back there because all of the guys he brought in are now gone, so his returning roster looks as bad as it did a year ago.  Unless you had your job pre portal, you almost have to be a portal team, because you inherited nothing.  And now that teams like Michigan, St. John's, and Louisville did what they did, and won quickly, I don't think the option of "patience because we don't want to be a portal team" is an option