~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~

[MichiFan87]

It was really ugly (especially early) and much closer than it should've been, but I'll take the win (the last-second in-bounds play was really impressive, which is usually a challenge for Michigan). Thankfully, Michigan has no more regular season games 2 days apart, because the team definitely looked tired tonight.

So long as they play well, the return game to Purdue remains the only game that they shouldn't win.

[ELA]

Updated composite computer poll, 39 rankings (last week in parenthesis)

1.		Villanova (1)
2.		PURDUE (3)
3.		Virginia (2)
4.		Duke (4)
5.		Texas Tech (6)
6.		Oklahoma (10)
7.		North Carolina (9)
8.		West Virginia (7)
9.		Kansas (8)
10.		MICHIGAN STATE (5)
11.		Wichita State (11)
12.		Xavier (12)
13.		Gonzaga (17)
14.		Auburn (19)
15.		Cincinnati (15)
16.		Clemson (14)
17.		Tennessee (20)
18.		OHIO STATE (-)
19.		Kentucky (24)
20.		MICHIGAN (-)
21.		Seton Hall (16)
22.		Arizona State (13)
23.		Arizona (22)
24.		TCU (18)
25.		Creighton (21)
	-
42.		Maryland (36)
63.		Penn State (58)
64.		Minnesota (48)
74.		Nebraska (75)
77.		Indiana (96)
81.		Northwestern (81)
91.		Wisconsin (84)
94.		Iowa (109)
100.		Illinois (83)
132.		Rutgers (121)

[medinabuckeye1]

Over the weekend there were two upsets:

• Michigan's win in the Breslin Center
• Minnesota's win at Penn State

The tiers currently are (with +/- for upsets):

• PU, MSU -1
• tOSU
• M +1, UMD, MN, PSU -2
• UNL +1, UW +1, IU +1, NU -1
• IA +1, RU, ILL -1

In total the upsets so far are:

Date	Won	@/v	Lost
4-Dec	UW	@	PSU
2-Jan	UNL	@	NU
6-Jan	IU	@	MN
11-Jan	IA	@	ILL
13-Jan	M	@	MSU
15-Jan	MN	@	PSU

Penn State is our only team at +/-2 and both of their upsets would still be upsets even if we demoted them.  Should we anyway?  I feel like Michigan should be in tier-2 with the Buckeyes.  I also wonder if perhaps Rutgers should be in their own tier-6 but Illinois' home loss to Iowa is making me thing that perhaps the Illini should join them in a new tier-6.  

As it is now, the projected final standings and BTT seeds are:

• 17-1 Purdue
• 16-2 Michigan State
• 14-4 Ohio State
• 10-8 Nebraska (wins tiebreaker with M based on H2H, no game in Ann Arbor)
• 10-8 Michigan 
• 9-9 Penn State
• 8-10 Maryland (wins tiebreaker with MN based on H2H, no game in Minneapolis)
• 8-10 Minnesota
• 7-11 Wisconsin (wins tiebreaker with IU based on H2H, no game in Bloomington)
• 7-11 Indiana
• 6-12 Rutgers (wins tiebreaker with NU based on H2H, no game in Evanston)
• 6-12 Northwestern
• 4-14 Iowa (wins tiebreaker with ILL based on H2H, won in Urbana)
• 4-14 Illinois

The match-ups in the BTT at MSG in NYC would be:
Wednesday, February 28:

• #11 Rutgers vs #14 Illinois, 8pm, BTN
• #12 Northwestern vs #13 Iowa, 530pm, BTN

Thursday, March 1:

• #5 Michigan vs NU/IA, 230pm, BTN
• #6 Penn State vs RU/ILL, 9pm, BTN
• #7 Maryland vs #10 Indiana, 630pm, BTN
• #8 Minnesota vs #9 Wisconsin, noon, BTN

Friday, March 2:

• #1 Purdue vs MN/UW, noon, BTN
• #2 Michigan State vs UMD/IU, 630pm, BTN
• #3 Ohio State vs PSU/RU/ILL, 9pm, BTN
• #4 Nebraska vs M/NU/IA, 230pm, BTN

Saturday, March 3:

• PU/MN/UW vs UNL/M/NU/IA, 2pm, CBS
• MSU/UMD/IU vs tOSU/PSU/RU/ILL, 4:30pm, CBS

Sunday, March 4:

• PU/MN/UW/UNL/M/NU/IA vs MSU/UMD/IU/tOSU/PSU/RU/ILL, 430pm, CBS

[ELA]

Granted no logical change would make UM over MSU in EL not an upset as far as these go, but I think MSU should probably drop down to 2.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Granted no logical change would make UM over MSU in EL not an upset as far as these go, but I think MSU should probably drop down to 2.

I wouldn't go that far just yet. I know they appear to be in a funk right now, but I'd give them a week to see if they pull out of it. They certainly have MORE than enough talent to remain tier 1, and I'll trust Izzo as a coach to right the ship until proven otherwise. And honestly until it happens, I don't see them losing on the road to Maryland, PSU, or Minnesota, all of which would be expected if you drop them. 
I do think Michigan should move up. In the loss to Purdue and obviously the win over MSU, they passed the eye test. This is a good team that's improving as they play deeper into the season IMHO.
Along those lines, though, where do MD, PSU, and MN belong right now? Maryland looks to be in a funk. PSU is -2. MN lost Lynch and without Coffey looks pretty terrible. Is there a clear enough line between PU/MSU/UM/OSU that perhaps there shouldn't even be a tier 3? 

[medinabuckeye1]

I agree with Bwar on MSU, at least for now.  Yes, MSU has lost two of their last three, but I also think that they have played three of the top five teams in the B1G in their last four games (UMD, tOSU, M).  

I *think* that at least Maryland is good enough to be in tier-3 but, like Bwar, I have my doubts about PSU and MN.  

Perhaps:
1) PU, MSU
2) tOSU, M
3) UMD
4) PSU, MN, UNL, UW, IU, NU
5) Iowa
6) RU, ILL

Tier-4 *feels* like it has too many teams, but I don't think any of them look good enough to join Maryland and I'm not sure which ones should drop.  

[847badgerfan]

I knew it would be rough for UW tonight, but this thing is UGLY.

Time to look to the spring game, I reckon.

[betarhoalphadelta]

I knew it would be rough for UW tonight, but this thing is UGLY.

Time to look to the spring game, I reckon.

Well, don't take it that hard. Purdue did the same thing to MN on Saturday, and then they turned around and beat PSU.

[mcwterps1]

I knew it was bad, but not this bad.... 

We are 7-28 (.200) against ranked teams. That winning percentage is good for 53rd among all P6 teams over the same timespan (that’s 75 teams).

Including his time at TAMU, Mark Turgeon is 0-24 against ranked teams on the road. Expand this to Top 50 (KenPom) road games, and Mark Turgeon is 8-48 (including 6-31 at Maryland). For comparison, since Turge has been at UMD: Beilein is 12-27, Painter 13-23, and Izzo 12-21 in road games against KP top 50. Tom Crean was 8-25 in road top 50 games during his tenure at IU. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I've never been a fan of that type of stat. "This coach has trouble beating ranked teams on the road. Fire him now!"

Well, your own stats suggest that EVERY coach has trouble beating top 50 teams on the road. Beilein, Painter, and Izzo are all batting somewhere around 30-36% against ranked teams on the road. Yes, Turgeon is only at ~17% against those similar teams, which isn't great. But that's perhaps better than Crean, who did similarly poorly but with IMHO better overall talent on the roster.

Thing is, beating ranked teams is hard. They're ranked because they're good. Beating them on the road is even harder. Road games in the B1G are brutal even when you're playing unranked teams. Beating a good (ranked or Kenpom top 50) team on their home court is an incredibly difficult task. That's why we say in our tier system that the home team should win every game against their own tier as well as the tier above them. It's only when the team strength disparity rises to two tiers away that we expect a home team to lose to a road team.

Now, maybe Turgeon is underperforming. Maybe he should go. But I hate using that stat [otherwise in a vacuum] to justify it. Or else we'd all be saying Fire Izzo because he's only winning road games against top 50 teams at a 36% rate. I mean, really, Tom Izzo should be above .500 against those teams, right? He's Tom Izzo?!

[847badgerfan]

I think he is underperforming, given the talent available to him on a yearly basis.

[FearlessF]

Glad I flipped over just to see the final minute of Nebraska-Illinois

give up 18 offensive boards to the opponent and still win the game?

[CWSooner]

I've never been a fan of that type of stat. "This coach has trouble beating ranked teams on the road. Fire him now!"

Well, your own stats suggest that EVERY coach has trouble beating top 50 teams on the road. Beilein, Painter, and Izzo are all batting somewhere around 30-36% against ranked teams on the road. Yes, Turgeon is only at ~17% against those similar teams, which isn't great. But that's perhaps better than Crean, who did similarly poorly but with IMHO better overall talent on the roster.

Thing is, beating ranked teams is hard. They're ranked because they're good. Beating them on the road is even harder. Road games in the B1G are brutal even when you're playing unranked teams. Beating a good (ranked or Kenpom top 50) team on their home court is an incredibly difficult task. That's why we say in our tier system that the home team should win every game against their own tier as well as the tier above them. It's only when the team strength disparity rises to two tiers away that we expect a home team to lose to a road team.

Now, maybe Turgeon is underperforming. Maybe he should go. But I hate using that stat [otherwise in a vacuum] to justify it. Or else we'd all be saying Fire Izzo because he's only winning road games against top 50 teams at a 36% rate. I mean, really, Tom Izzo should be above .500 against those teams, right? He's Tom Izzo?!

I may have posted this here before.  SI did an analysis of home-field/court advantage not too many years ago, and concluded that it is greatest in basketball.  The authors surmised that it was because the officials are intimidated by the crowd being so close at hand.

[bayareabadger]

I've never been a fan of that type of stat. "This coach has trouble beating ranked teams on the road. Fire him now!"

Well, your own stats suggest that EVERY coach has trouble beating top 50 teams on the road. Beilein, Painter, and Izzo are all batting somewhere around 30-36% against ranked teams on the road. Yes, Turgeon is only at ~17% against those similar teams, which isn't great. But that's perhaps better than Crean, who did similarly poorly but with IMHO better overall talent on the roster.

Thing is, beating ranked teams is hard. They're ranked because they're good. Beating them on the road is even harder. Road games in the B1G are brutal even when you're playing unranked teams. Beating a good (ranked or Kenpom top 50) team on their home court is an incredibly difficult task. That's why we say in our tier system that the home team should win every game against their own tier as well as the tier above them. It's only when the team strength disparity rises to two tiers away that we expect a home team to lose to a road team.

Now, maybe Turgeon is underperforming. Maybe he should go. But I hate using that stat [otherwise in a vacuum] to justify it. Or else we'd all be saying Fire Izzo because he's only winning road games against top 50 teams at a 36% rate. I mean, really, Tom Izzo should be above .500 against those teams, right? He's Tom Izzo?!

This
I feel like a lot of the time, a number like this is brought out and it makes a really mundane thing seem really dire. Maryland's rank seems concerning, though I'd want to see more context behind it. 
I think of the football example. People would complain about someone winning 28 percent of their ranked games. But if you play 3-4 ranked teams a year and aren't slipping up, that mean's you're an 8-9 win team most of the time. I don't know that MT's ranked record equates to three seeds between 6 and 4 and a sweet 16. Maybe. 
One thing that is interesting is how many ranked teams MD ends up facing.
2018 2 in 20 games
2017 2 total
2016 6 in the regular season
2015 4
ACC
2014 7
2013 4