~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~

[mcwterps1]

I get they have injuries and suspensions but Minnesota is playing stupid, and you'd think at least the not ready for prime time kids would be all in trying to prove themselves with fake hustle and what not.  Instead they look like they've quit.

They are worse off than Maryland.
It's not like they had depth to begin with, but they were worse off with their situation.

[medinabuckeye1]

That popping noise you heard last night was Northwestern's last minute chance for an at-large bid dying.  

IMHO:

Locks:

• 13-1/22-5 Ohio State:  Even in a worst case scenario they would still get the #4 seed in the BTT and finish 13-5/22-10.  Losses at Michigan and at Penn State wouldn't be too damaging.  A home loss to Rutgers and a road loss to Indiana would obviously hurt the Buckeyes' seed.  In that worst-case-scenario the BTT loss would be in the 4 vs 5/12/13 game.  A loss to #12 or #13 would really hurt the seed but a loss to #5 wouldn't really move the needle.  
• 13-2/25-3 Michigan State:  Even in a worst case scenario they would still get at least the #5 seed in the BTT and finish 13-5/25-7.  Losing at Northwestern, at Wisconsin, at home to Illinois, then losing a neutral site game to the 12/13 winner would be a terrible way to end the season but the Spartans would obviously still make the tournament.  
• 12-2/23-4 Purdue:  Ending the season on a seven game losing streak would obviously suck but even at 12-6/23-9 the Boilermakers would still make the tournament.  

Need to win BTT at MSG in NYC:

• 2-11/12-14 Illinois:  Winning out until the B1GCG would only get the Illini to 21-15 (at best) and that wouldn't be enough.  
• 3-12/13-15 Rutgers:  Winning out until the B1GCG would only get the Scarlet Knights to 20-16 (at best) and that wouldn't be enough.  
• 3-12/14-14 Minnesota:  Winning out until the B1GCG would only get the Gophers to 21-15 (at best) and that wouldn't be enough.  
• 3-11/12-15 Iowa:  Winning out until the B1GCG would only get the Hawkeyes to 20-16 (at best) and that wouldn't be enough.  
• 4-10/11-16 Wisconsin:  Winning out until the B1GCG would only get the Badgers to 18-17 and that wouldn't be enough.  
• 6-8/15-12 Northwestern:  Winning out until the B1GCG would get the Wildcats to 22-13.  That record would be enough for some teams, but those teams do not have NU's weak SoS and three sub-100 RPI losses.  
• 7-7/14-12 Indiana:  Winning out until the B1GCG would only get the Hoosiers to 21-13.  Like Northwestern, that record would be enough for some teams, but those teams do not have IU's four really bad losses (at #148 Wisconsin, vs #168 Indiana State, at #183 Illinois, vs #198 Ft. Wayne).  

So that leaves four teams on the bubble.  (NOTE that I define "the bubble" as inclusively as possible.  Any team that either could possibly get an at-large bid in a best-case-scenario or miss one in a worst-case-scenario is "on the bubble".)

11-4/20-8 Nebraska:  The Cornhuskers' win last night over the Terps helps a lot because Nebraska's biggest problem is a critical shortage of quality wins.  They only have three wins over RPI top-100 teams:

• vs #37 Michigan
• vs #62 Maryland
• vs #74 Boston College

In addition they have a road win over #102 Northwestern that has been and could potentially again be a top-100 win but that is dependent on Northwestern's performance.  

Their remaining regular season games are @ #183 Illinois, vs #108 Indiana, and vs #86 Penn State.  IMHO, a loss in any one of those would be significantly problematic for the Cornhuskers.  Given their lack of quality wins they need all they can get (vs PSU) and a bad loss (ILL/IU) would be seriously damaging.  

We project them to win out and get the #4 seed in the BTT at MSG in NYC.  If they do, they could probably afford a loss to the #5 seed (assuming it is Michigan) but I'm not sure that they could afford a bad loss in NYC.  

9-5/20-7 Michigan:  The Wolverines have two nice OOC wins (vs #52 UCLA, @ #56 Texas) that significantly help their cause.  Even with those two, they only have four top-100 RPI wins:  Those two, vs #62 Maryland, and at #14 Michigan State.  The Wolverines should be fine, but they don't have as much margin for error as it might seem.  They finish with a home game against Iowa tonight then three games that might all be seen as close to toss-ups:  vs #16 Ohio State, @ #86 Penn State, @ #62 Maryland.  If they were to lose all three they would finish 10-8/21-10 and have work to do in the BTT at MSG in NYC.  

8-6/18-9 Penn State:  The Nittany Lions' three game winning streak has kept their bubble hopes alive but now the going gets really tough.  Tomorrow night they host an Ohio State team that will probably have revenge on their minds then Sunday they travel to Purdue.  Even after that things don't let up much with a home game against Michigan then a road trip to Lincoln.  Like most of the B1G's bubble teams the Nittany Lions have a critical shortage of quality wins but they finish the season with four games against teams in the top-53 of the RPI so they will have opportunities to rectify that situation.  The question is:  How many more losses can they afford?  

6-9/17-11 Maryland:  The Terps have so many heartbreaking losses this season it is almost comical.  They lost:

• to #44 St. Bonaventure by 2 on a neutral court
• @ #36 Cuse by 2
• vs #12 PU by 5
• @ #37 M by 1
• vs #14 MSU by 6
• @ #86 PSU by 4
• @ #53 UNL by 4
• @ #108 IU by 3

That is eight losses in games decided by two possessions or less.  The more sophisticated computer models like the Terps a lot more than RPI because RPI doesn't look at MoV, just who won.  More sophisticated models do consider MoV and that helps the Terps but it seems like the committee is fixated on RPI and their tier system which is based on RPI.  Still, IMHO if the Terps won out until the B1GCG that would get them a closer look from the committee and that closer look would reveal all those near misses and I think they would get in.  

[medinabuckeye1]

General observation: I think I'd prefer that the schedule algorithm be changed so that there are no home-only or away-only matchups anymore.  I know that would mean some teams don't match up at all during the regular season, which is unbalanced. But it's *already* unbalanced, and I think it's worse as it currently is.

Playing tougher teams away-only and weaker teams home-only to excess can really skew the results.

That is an interesting idea that I have never seen thrown out there before.  Usually people want to play everybody twice which is great in theory but it is not practical to have 26 conference games.  
Since we are going to 20 games soon, I assume that in your model each team would play 10 of the other 13 twice each and miss three.  Theoretically you could miss tOSU, MSU, and PU this year and have a really easy schedule or miss IL, RU, and MN and have a really tough schedule but it would be interesting in that at least you wouldn't have the issue of getting most of the top teams on the road.  

[Brutus Buckeye]

They could always base it on the standings from the previous season, where the top three teams miss the bottom three teams, and what not. 

[JerseyTerrapin]

They could always base it on the standings from the previous season, where the top three teams miss the bottom three teams, and what not.

I like it.  Kinda' like the NFL's so-called parity schedules.

[medinabuckeye1]

They could always base it on the standings from the previous season, where the top three teams miss the bottom three teams, and what not.

I would be opposed to that because some teams would practically never play.  Since RU and UMD joined:
2015 top-3:

• Wisconsin
• Maryland
• Michigan State/Iowa/Purdue

2016 top-3:

• Indiana
• Michigan State
• Maryland/Purdue/Iowa/Wisconsin

2017 top-3:

• Purdue
• Wisconsin
• Maryland

2015 bottom-3:

• Rutgers
• Penn State
• Nebraska

2016 bottom-3:

• Rutgers
• Minnesota
• Illinois

2017 bottom-3:

• Rutgers
• Nebraska
• Penn State

So Rutgers has been in the bottom three every year with Nebraska two of the three.  

Depending on how you break the ties, Maryland and Wisconsin have been in the top three every year with Purdue and Michigan State two out of three.  

I wouldn't want any two B1G teams to go more than a couple years tops without playing at all.  

[Brutus Buckeye]

You'd also run into problems due to the fact that 14 isn't divisible by three.

You could always cap it to where you don't miss a program for more than two years (Big Ten Tourney not-withstanding). 

Of course those match ups are likely to be blowouts, so missing them wouldn't be the worst thing.

You'd also have to figure out a way to take the protection of in-state rivalries into account. 

So now we are talking about a complex calculus equation, so it would be best to stick to the "rotation" I suppose. 

[medinabuckeye1]

You'd also run into problems due to the fact that 14 isn't divisible by three.

You could always cap it to where you don't miss a program for more than two years (Big Ten Tourney not-withstanding).

Of course those match ups are likely to be blowouts, so missing them wouldn't be the worst thing.

You'd also have to figure out a way to take the protection of in-state rivalries into account.

So now we are talking about a complex calculus equation, so it would be best to stick to the "rotation" I suppose.

I think if you were going to do it it would be best to stick to a rotation and have protected rivals.  
With 14 teams in the league, for each team there are 13 other teams.  Ideally, I think you would want the number of schools that you sometimes miss to be evenly divisible by the number of schools that you miss each year.  Ie, with 20 conference games you would play 10 teams twice each and miss three so I think you would want to have either one protected rival and 12 schools that you miss on a rotation or four protected rivals and nine schools that you miss on a rotation.  
Ex, for Ohio State:

• If we only had one protected rival I'm really not sure who ours would be.  Ohio State fans would probably say Michigan but Michigan State is instate and is probably a bigger basketball rival for them so that would be out.  Ohio State fans next would probably pick Indiana but Purdue is instate and is probably a bigger basketball rival for them.  Thus, we'd probably be left with Penn State.  So in a four year rotation the Buckeyes would play Penn State eight times (twice a year) and the other 12 teams in the B1G six times each (twice each in three years and not at all in the fourth).  
• If we had four protected rivals I'm thinking that Ohio State's would be Penn State, Michigan, and the two Eastern Schools.  Ohio State and their fans wouldn't want the two eastern schools but I'm assuming that their protected rivals would be each other and Penn State so they would each need two more and Ohio State is the next easternmost school.  Thus, in a three year rotation the Buckeyes would play Penn State, Michigan, Rutgers, and Maryland six times each and the other nine teams in the B1G four times each (twice each in two years and not at all in the third).  

[FearlessF]

I would be opposed to that because some teams would practically never play.  Since RU and UMD joined:

well, in theory, the weakening or strengthening of schedules should help in that regard and get more teams rotated into the top 3 and the bottom 3.
I actually like it.
Gives the bottom three even more incentive to get the top teams to play at their court.
besides, I don't think Spartan fans or players are all that interested in playing Rutgers

[medinabuckeye1]

If you were going to do it as "parity scheduling" I think you would need a slight adjustment rather than simply the top-3 miss the bottom-3.  

Example (using the idea that Brutus threw out and extrapolating from there):

• misses 12, 13, 14
• misses 12, 13, 14
• misses 12, 13, 14
• misses 9, 10, 11
• misses 9, 10, 11
• misses 9, 10, 11
• misses ?
• misses ?
• misses 4, 5, 6
• misses 4, 5, 6
• misses 4, 5, 6
• misses 1, 2, 3
• misses 1, 2, 3
• misses 1, 2, 3

Slightly adjusted version:

• misses 11, 13, 14
• misses 10, 12, 14
• misses 9, 12, 13
• misses 8, 11, 14
• misses 7, 10, 13
• misses 7, 8, 12
• misses 5, 6, 10
• misses 4, 6, 9
• misses 3, 8, 11
• misses 2, 5, 7
• misses 1, 4, 9
• misses 2, 3, 6
• misses 1, 3, 5
• misses 1, 2, 4

That isn't perfect but it is the basic idea.  It would get really complicated if you tossed in a "can't miss the same team three years in a row" rule.  

[Brutus Buckeye]

We could always go to divisions, like the Mac or the old CUSA?

[Brutus Buckeye]

Slightly adjusted version:

• misses 11, 13, 14
• misses 10, 12, 14
• misses 9, 12, 13
• misses 8, 11, 14
• misses 7, 10, 13
• misses 7, 8, 12
• misses 5, 6, 10
• misses 4, 6, 9
• misses 3, 8, 11
• misses 2, 5, 7
• misses 1, 4, 9
• misses 2, 3, 6
• misses 1, 3, 5
• misses 1, 2, 4

That isn't perfect but it is the basic idea.  It would get really complicated if you tossed in a "can't miss the same team three years in a row" rule.  

I had a feeling you'd be able to wrap your brain around that. 
I like it. But I guess we'd have to scrap the protected in-State rivalries. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, some protected rivalries matter. I think it's absolutely BS that Purdue and Indiana don't play twice *every* year. They've been one-plays several times over the last decade.

The idea that we could have years where we're not even on each other's schedule once is simply unacceptable.

[FearlessF]

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, some protected rivalries matter. I think it's absolutely BS that Purdue and Indiana don't play twice *every* year. They've been one-plays several times over the last decade.

The idea that we could have years where we're not even on each other's schedule once is simply unacceptable.

"parity scheduling" with the slight adjustment would solve this issue
unless of course one of the two rivals sucked enuff to make the bottom 3 while the other rival stayed in the top 3
from recent history the most likely, Rutgers, Penn St, and Nebraska don't have in-state rivals
problem solved - someone ring Big Jim