~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~

[medinabuckeye1]

And I'm fine with that too.  But then then the P5 needs to split off.

But let's be honest.  It'll be 8, with 6 auto bids very soon.  So 12 just means you have a reason to care about weeknight MAC and Sun Belt games, even though they will never win those 1st round games.

I agree completely that it will be eight with six auto-bids very soon.  The only point of clarification that I would add is that the sixth auto-bid will be a quasi-auto-bid given to the highest ranked Go5 Champ while the other five will be straight-up auto-bids for the P5 Champs.  
I disagree with the theory that going to 12 would give me a reason to watch weeknight MAC games because, as you said, they'll never win those first round games anyway so who cares which MAC team gets the opportunity to get run off the field?  

[847badgerfan]

I know it's self-serving, but as a Chicago sports (and non-Cub) fan, I'm enjoying this Loyola thing. It's brought energy to the City, and that's fine by me.

I'd rather read about the Ramblers and Sister Jean on the front page than read about how many kids got murdered over the weekend.

[medinabuckeye1]

Oh, I don’t like it when a WC wins the SB.  I especially didn’t like it when the 9-7 Giants won it and didn’t like it when the 9-7 Cardinals made it.  It just feels like the wrong result to me.

My conundrum is I love the NCAA Tournament.  It’s my favorite sporting event, but I also prefer to crown the most consistent, best teams over the course of the season the champion.

This is where I am.  I love the NCAA Tournament because it is a win-or-go-home deal.  That makes it exciting but at the same time it creates a situation in which the best team only rarely wins the National Championship.  Look at the runs to the Final Four:
#1 Nova:

• Beat #16 Radford by 26
• Beat #9 Bama by 23
• Beat #5 WVU by 12
• Beat #3 TxTech by 12

#1 Kansas:

• Beat #16 Penn by 16
• Beat #8 Seton Hall by 4
• Beat #5 Clemson by 4
• Beat #2 Dook by 4

#11 Loyola-Chicago:

• Beat #6 Miami by 2
• Beat #3 Tn by 1
• Beat #7 Nevada by 1
• Beat #9 KSU by 16

#3 Michigan:

• Beat #14 Montana by 14
• Beat #6 Houston by 1
• Beat #7 aTm by 27
• Beat #9 FSU by 4

[HailHailMSP]

Medina - When I look back at the last three years I would say the opposite. The best team has been crowned. It’s hard to argue any of those three champions were not the best team in th country.

If Villanova wins this year I believe that holds to form. I also think that would be true if Kansas or Michigan won. Both had January and early Feb struggles, but both are two of the hottest teams in the country that haven’t lost a game in some time. And, each won their conference tournaments. If Michigan were to win they will have won their last 15 games, B1G tourney champs, won 35 games, etc.

Even Loyola could make a case; if they beat Michigan and then knock off a dominant 1 seed in the championship.

There are the years like 2011 when UCONN got hot and rode Kemba, but those seem to be more the exception.

[Brutus Buckeye]

Even a tourney that only featured regular season Conference Champions would have upsets.

[HailHailMSP]

If i look back at the last 12 years. In 10 of those 12 years a legitimate resume is in place for the NCAA champ, to also be deemed “the best.” Others could make that case too, but at least you can feel comfortable with the National Champion having a resume of one of th best few teams in the country.

The two exceptions where it becomes really hard to make that case are UConn’s two titles. Those were really good runs at the right time. 

More often than not we get a champ worthy of the title on paper and the whole body of work. For 3 of 4 final four contestants this year that should be true. All top 8 in KenPom. Sure, you could point to Virginia or Villanova (if they don’t win), but beyond that the champ should stack up.

[SuperMario]

I disagree that nobody does, we have on here before.
But I think there are a couple of differences.
(1) We are used to having series in the NBA, and we know we can't get that in football, so we are willing to accept the flukiness of any sort of football playoff.
(2) the NFL playoffs are so much smaller, that at least you went through the bulk of more deserving teams to get there.  A Wildcard that reaches the Super Bowl beat 3/5 of the other playoff teams from their conference, and the way the bracket is set up, almost certainly they were 3 of the 4 division champs.  In the NCAA basketball tournament, you only play 5 of 31 teams on your side of the bracket, and there's no guarantee they are even the good ones.  Like when George Mason made their run, even though they weren't one of the best 4 teams, they did go through Michigan State, North Carolina and UConn to get there, so we more accepted it.  But the way things happened this year, it wasn't the teams that made it that knocked off the top teams, other teams knocked off the top teams, then Michigan and Loyola knocked off those teams.
(3) I was never talking about legitimacy of a champion.  You have to be both lucky and good.  That was my point about Purdue.  I think they still are the best team in the Big Ten, but they didn't get the scheduling luck MSU had during the regular season; or other teams knocking of all the big boys luck that Michigan had in the postseason, so they are going home.  I was simply saying as a neutral fan, I was a little bummed about the caliber of basketball we were stuck with on Thursday/Saturday.  It was a shell of what we saw on Friday/Sunday, and as a fan, I feel a little cheated there.  And that does carry to the NFL.  I was bummed we didn't get a Patriots-Steelers AFC Championship.  I have a little Warriors-Cavs fatigue at this point, but I'm glad we didn't get Warriors-Raptors or something last year.

I rarely disagree with your underlying opinions, but we're the sun and the moon on this. 
1) I think the caliber of basketball this weekend was fantastic. I see Michigan, Florida State & Loyola similar to seeing great defenses and low scoring games in football or a 1-0 pitchers duel in baseball. It may not be sexy to the average fan, but the quality of the team and what is happening at the finest details of the game are truly something watch. The length & athleticism of FSU were incredible.
2) How often do we as fans think we know who the best teams are based on paper or previous games, just to watch in surprise as the teams on the field or court give us a different outcome. I was confident that the Indians were a far better team than the Yankees last year. The outcome surprising. I think most, if not all sports, have an element of being at your best at the correct time, rather than best during the season. Otherwise, wouldn't the team with the most wins during the season always win the title? If the Cavs missed playing Houston, Oklahoma City & San Antonio in 2016, does it mean they were not the best team, yet not questioning the legitimacy of their championship? If we start going down that road, why crown a champion in any sport instead of just having regular season champs?
It seems this argument comes up when we can't make sense of the outcome. I'm not pointing the finger since I'm just as guilty as anyone. Flukiness in sports makes us question if the system is right instead of just appreciating that the human element is something that isn't always predictable or logical. 

[medinabuckeye1]

@HailHailMSP ,

I get it.  You can make an argument for plenty of the winners but, at a minimum, you can agree that there are frequently teams that make the final four that are nowhere near the top-4 in the country.  

When I think of my own team in this context I remember plenty of years when they weren't a top-4 team but got in either because they got lucky or got hot and other years when they were a top-4 team and didn't sniff the final four either because they got unlucky or cold.  

Loyola-Chicago clearly isn't one of the best four or for that matter best forty teams in the country but there they are.  

@SuperMario ,
I'm with ELA.  You stated that the length and athleticism of FSU were incredible but please note that they were a .500 team in the ACC.  If their length and athleticism were really that great they would have finished better than 9-9.  

A big part of the "luck" portion of the NCAA Tournament is having your off games at times when you can afford them.  For example, in Ohio State's run to the CG in 2007 they barely survived #8 seed Xavier in OT in the second round and only beat #4 seed Tennessee by one point in the sweet sixteen.  Thereafter they heated up and spanked #2 seed Memphis in the Regional Final and beat #2 seed Georgetown in the semi-final.  

Michigan played a great game against aTm but despite Mario's awe at the Seminoles' length and athleticism, FSU isn't very good.  Michigan has played really well in one of their four tournament games so far.  Now they get a highly unusual freebie in the semi-final and then if they play really well in the final game they have about a 50/50 chance of being the National Champion.  

[ELA]

And I also don't want to conflate a critique of Michigan with a critique of Michigan's path.  I'm perfectly ok with Michigan being there.  As I said earlier, the only team on the entire left side of the bracket I didn't think they would beat was UNC.  So even if it had been Xavier in the Elite 8, and Virginia in the Final 4, I still would have picked Michigan to the national title game with only the knowledge that Texas A&M beat UNC.

[HailHailMSP]

Yes, I would agree that frequently many teams outside the Top 4 make the Final Four. Taking this year as an example, Villanova is the only team in the Final Four, that is clearly in the Top 4 by any computer metric you look at. Kansas falls into the Top 4 in most. Michigan is in the top 4 in some (as high as #2 with Massey, as low as #9 with Sagarin). Loyola is not Top 4 in any. And, many years there are 1-2 Loyola's in the Final Four.

My only notation, was that when its all said and done, if Michigan, Kansas, or Villanova win, they will likely be in that Top 3-4 of all the key computer metrics. That has been the case 11 of the last 12 years, with 2014 UConn being the rare exception. Since 2006 12 teams have been a 5 seed or greater in the Final Four. 1 has won the title.

It was interesting to me that 3 of the last 4 Final Four runs for Michigan State were as 5 seeds or higher. Would not have guessed that.

[HailHailMSP]

And I also don't want to conflate a critique of Michigan with a critique of Michigan's path.  I'm perfectly ok with Michigan being there.  As I said earlier, the only team on the entire left side of the bracket I didn't think they would beat was UNC.  So even if it had been Xavier in the Elite 8, and Virginia in the Final 4, I still would have picked Michigan to the national title game with only the knowledge that Texas A&M beat UNC.

Nothing speaks to the randomness of the tournament better than the North Carolina / A&M and Michigan / A&M results. And, less about who won or loss and more about the margin of victory in each game.

And I agree, I struggled with picking Michigan and Michigan State further than their ACC kryptonite (Carolina & Duke). I liked their odds against most anyone else in each of their respective regions.

On Michigan's path to the tourney I think they had two good performances, one mediocre, and one poor. Texas A&M was a great performance, minus the lax defense in the 2nd half. I think Houston was too, mostly because I think Houston was a fantastic team. They were Top 10 defensively in the country with a high scoring guard and depth with long and athletic post players. It was an ugly game at times against an opponent that would likely be 1 game away from a National Championship appearance if it were not for Jordan Poole. I would put Houston next to UNC and Michigan in the Top 3 in the region. KenPom had them near the 4 seed line coming into the tourney. Michigan played unbelievable on one end against FSU, and terrible on the other. Not something you can usually get away with in a region final. Michigan found good fortune that their opponent was who it was at that point. Montana was a mess, but something you can get away with in Round 1 when seeded in the top 3 or 4.

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a stat earlier that whereas Michigan has been losing about 7/8 of their games when scoring less than 1PPP, this year they are winning 70% of those games.
Michigan can win so many ways now, which is so essential in a single-elimination tourney like this where a bad match-up or cold streak sends most teams packing.
Luke Yaklich deserves a tripling of his salary. Don't let that one go.

[847badgerfan]

I saw a stat earlier that whereas Michigan has been losing about 7/8 of their games when scoring less than 1PPP, this year they are winning 70% of those games.
Michigan can win so many ways now, which is so essential in a single-elimination tourney like this where a bad match-up or cold streak sends most teams packing.
Luke Yaklich deserves a tripling of his salary. Don't let that one go.

I was reading about him. What a key addition that was.

[Anonymous Coward]

Beilein definitely did his homework on that one:
https://247sports.com/college/michigan/Article/Once-more-Michigan-basketballs-revamped-defense-saves-the-day-as-Wolverines-make-Final-Four-116664660
Excerpt on the hiring process:

“I want a guy that can teach,” Beilein recalled thinking. “I don't care what you know, if you can't teach it.”
Beilein was more thorough in vetting Yaklich than Donlon — who had three 20-win seasons as a head coach. He met with Yaklich’s former high school principal, as many of his coworkers with the Redbirds as possible and even asked for practice tapes to see how Yaklich taught things.
It took six weeks, but Beilein eventually made the hire.