~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~

[ELA]

The Big Ten's team in the 3 v. 3 tourney will be Nate Mason, JaeSean Tate, Vincent Edwards and Robert Johnson.

[grillrat]

The Big Ten's team in the 3 v. 3 tourney will be Nate Mason, JaeSean Tate, Vincent Edwards and Robert Johnson.

Stupid Big Ten.  Still can't count.

(I keeeed, I keeeed  )

[medinabuckeye1]

Well, and the fact that 4 of those 5 losses were bad losses.  Close or not.

They definitely were but the RPI (and therefore the committee) doesn't care in the least about bad "near losses".  It is purely W's vs L's so if they had won those first four games by one point each instead of losing them close, they'd have EASILY been a tournament team.  That might also have been enough to boost Ohio State up one line because those three losses to "non-tournament" Penn State would instead have been better looking losses to a fellow tournament team.  

[ELA]

They definitely were but the RPI (and therefore the committee) doesn't care in the least about bad "near losses".  It is purely W's vs L's so if they had won those first four games by one point each instead of losing them close, they'd have EASILY been a tournament team.  That might also have been enough to boost Ohio State up one line because those three losses to "non-tournament" Penn State would instead have been better looking losses to a fellow tournament team.  

Well, they care about the caliber of the wins/losses.  That's the whole basis of the quadrants.  It's not so much that they lost a bunch of close game, MOV doesn't really seem to matter.  But that 4 of the 5 losses were to tourney teams certainly don't help.

[medinabuckeye1]

Well, they care about the caliber of the wins/losses.  That's the whole basis of the quadrants.  It's not so much that they lost a bunch of close game, MOV doesn't really seem to matter.  But that 4 of the 5 losses were to tourney teams certainly don't help.

That is my point.  In the more sophisticated computer ranking systems (like Kenpom, sagrin, etc) there isn't THAT big of a difference between winning by one point or losing by one point.  In the committee's apparently still favored RPI (which also determines the rankings for the quadrants) there is a HUMONGOUS difference between winning by one point and losing by one point because RPI only cares about W's and L's.  A blow-out, 30 point win is exactly equivalent to a miraculous half-court heave to win by one point and a blow-out 30 point loss is exactly equivalent to a miraculous half-court heave to lose by one point.  

[ELA]

Well, this was predictable.  Hopefully at least the last two games of the tourney are watchable

[Brutus Buckeye]

[ELA]

These football stadiums mess up jump ahooshoo so much.  UM needs to keep feeding the block.  Might give Kansas an edge on Nova and UM

[ELA]

Stick to those side threes.  Those translate to any arena.  Better sight lines.

[ELA]

The 7-0 run with Wagner/Matthews out changed everything.  Could have ended UMs season.  Instead it forced other guys to snap out of their funk, and not lean on those guys.  And they stayed hot the rest of the way.  They'll need a whole lot more from Simpson and MAAR on Monday though.

[Brutus Buckeye]

When Michigan raided West Virginia for their revenue sports coaches, who'da thunk that B-Line would be the one to take them to two NC games? 

[ELA]

Yeesh, Villanova looks invincible tonight

[ELA]

FWIW, composite computer ranking have us #8, which is exactly where we finished the past two years, so maybe not.

[SuperMario]

Hopefully Michigan got its awful shooting performance out of their system and Nova got this incredible performance out of their system. I have a feeling Nova blows the doors off, but you never know. One more Michigan win caps off a run for the ages.