~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~

[847badgerfan]

They have like 12 wins over teams in the field this year, including OOC wins over UM, OSU, and Tennessee.

Yes, but they also have 10 losses - some bad, one of which was at the hands of 29-4 MSU, which pounded them at a neutral site, and is a 3 seed.

[Entropy]

the committee looked at who you beat over any other metric.   And beating name schools also mattered.  

[fezzador]

He's always been a good mid major coach.  He's just not a high major coach.
In his 10 years at SW Missouri State and New Mexico, his teams always overachieved.  He might just be better served there.
Although, looking up his career record, he had been better at UCLA than I would have guessed.  Already forgot they were 31-5 last year and reached the Sweet 16.  

For a program as storied as UCLA, the expectations should be a lot higher than an occasional S16 run.  A couple of generations ago, they were the premier program in college hoops (and it wasn't even close), but now they're firmly behind the quartet of Duke, Kentucky, UNC, and Kansas.
And as weak as hoops are out West, there's no reason they shouldn't be dominating the PAC (or at least be neck-and-neck with Zona).
While I didn't specifically say Alford was a *bad* coach, he's hardly an elite one and almost certainly won't get the Bruins over the hump.  He had talent at Iowa but couldn't get the Hawks over the hump either.
IIRC, his dream job is Indiana and I don't think the Hoosiers want to touch him with a ten-foot pole.  If he gets the axe, maybe he can join Kiffy-kins at Florida Atlantic.  I'm sure he'd kill it over there (if they need a new coach that is).

[ELA]

Bracket is already out, but as a comparison to how it would look just using the composite computer rankings.  As for Big Ten teams, Purdue, Michigan and Ohio State are correctly seeded as a 2, 3 and 5, but MSU is underseeded, should be a 2 also.  As for opponents, Purdue and Ohio State got a nice draw, getting CS Fullerton as a 15, when they should be a 16, and Ohio State getting South Dakota State as a 12, when they should be a 13.  Conversely, UM and MSU getting opponents as 14s, who should be 13s.  Oddly, MSU, UM and OSU are all facing teams who should be 13s.  FTR, last time MSU was underseeded based on this, and also faced an underseeded team, we got MTSU, so...

		EAST				SOUTH
1		Villanova				Virginia		1
16		Tx So/NC Central				Radford/LIU		16
			Pittsburgh		Charlotte
8		Miami				Rhode Island		8
9		USC				Kansas State		9
				.
5		OHIO STATE				Auburn		5
12		Murray State				Buffalo		12
			Boise		San Diego
4		Kentucky				Wichita State		4
13		S.D. State				UNC Greensboro		13
				.
3		Xavier				MICHIGAN		3
14		Georgia State				Marshall		14
			Nashville		Wichita
6		Florida				TCU		6
11		Baylor/PENN ST				NC State		11
				.
7		Texas A&M				Seton Hall		7
10		Loyola(Ill)				Florida State		10
			Pittsburgh		Wichita
2		North Carolina				Kansas		2
15		Pennsylvania				Wright State		15
	-			-			-
		WEST				MIDWEST
1		Cincinnati				Duke		1
16		CS Fullerton				UMBC		16
			Nashville		Charlotte
8		Saint Mary's				Butler		8
9		Louisville				Texas		9
				.
5		Arizona				Houston		5
12		NM State				Davidson		12
			Dallas		San Diego
4		Texas Tech				West Virginia		4
13		Bucknell				Montana		13
				.
3		Gonzaga				Tennessee		3
14		Stephen F. Austin				Charleston		14
			Boise		Dallas
6		Nevada				Clemson		6
11		Oklahoma/UCLA				San Diego State		11
				.
7		Arkansas				Creighton		7
10		Virginia Tech				Missouri		10
			Detroit		Detroit
2		PURDUE				MICHIGAN STATE		2
15		Lipscomb				Iona		15

So which teams got screwed (along with the seed they got here)?  Saint Mary's (8), Louisville (9), USC (9), Baylor (FF), and Penn State (FF).

Which teams should be thanking the committee (along with their ranking)?  Arizona State (47), Alabama (48), Providence (49), Syracuse (52) and St. Bonaventure (57).

And for good measure, an NIT bracket

1		Notre Dame		Arizona State		1
8		Hampton		SE Louisiana		8
	.
4		Oregon		Western Kentucky		4
5		Georgia		LSU		5
			.
3		NEBRASKA		St. Bonaventure		3
6		N. Kentucky		Vermont		6
					.
2		Marquette		Oklahoma State		2
7		Rider		UC Davis		7
	.
1		Providence		Alabama		1
8		Wagner		UNC Asheville		8
			.
4		Mississippi State		Utah		4
5		UL Lafayette		Old Dominion		5
					.
3		Boise State		MARYLAND		3
6		Boston College		BYU		6
			.
2		Middle Tennessee		Syracuse		2
7		Harvard		Florida Gulf Coast		7

[ELA]

It appears the right justify didn't hold, but it's still readable

[847badgerfan]

For a program as storied as UCLA, the expectations should be a lot higher than an occasional S16 run.  A couple of generations ago, they were the premier program in college hoops (and it wasn't even close)

Yep, and they had the highest payroll in college sports (and it wasn't even close).

[medinabuckeye1]

the committee looked at who you beat over any other metric.   And beating name schools also mattered.  

I noticed this too.  The same thing happened in CFB when they went to the playoff.  It seems like wins are compared now and losses just get forgotten (other than the fact that you lost).  In earlier times we used to talk about "bad losses" in both sports but that seems to be an antiquated concept now.  

[ELA]

I noticed this too.  The same thing happened in CFB when they went to the playoff.  It seems like wins are compared now and losses just get forgotten (other than the fact that you lost).  In earlier times we used to talk about "bad losses" in both sports but that seems to be an antiquated concept now.  

I think the only place they seemed to care about it was the MSU vs. UM thing.  UM had better wins, including head to head.  But MSU only lost 4 times, and all 4 losses were to top 15 teams, while UM lost more times, including 3 times to non-tourney teams.

[bayareabadger]

For a program as storied as UCLA, the expectations should be a lot higher than an occasional S16 run.  A couple of generations ago, they were the premier program in college hoops (and it wasn't even close), but now they're firmly behind the quartet of Duke, Kentucky, UNC, and Kansas.
And as weak as hoops are out West, there's no reason they shouldn't be dominating the PAC (or at least be neck-and-neck with Zona).
While I didn't specifically say Alford was a *bad* coach, he's hardly an elite one and almost certainly won't get the Bruins over the hump.  He had talent at Iowa but couldn't get the Hawks over the hump either.
IIRC, his dream job is Indiana and I don't think the Hoosiers want to touch him with a ten-foot pole.  If he gets the axe, maybe he can join Kiffy-kins at Florida Atlantic.  I'm sure he'd kill it over there (if they need a new coach that is).

I mean, they made three Sweet 16s in five years, so more than occasional. 
That job is weird. You have Wooden who was just impossible (and had Sam Gilbert). But the last set of coaches: 
Alford-Gone after three Sweet 16s in five years. 
Howland-Went to three Final Fours, gone after a 25-10 season that ended in the first round, which was part of missing the dance twice in four years. 
Lavin-Gone after missing the tourney for the first time in 15 years. Before that an Elite 8 in year 1, then four sweet 16s in five years. 
Harrick-A title at the end of a kinda ok run. One sweet 16 and one elite eight in first six years. Out for impermissible benefits. 

Where does one go? 

[847badgerfan]

Gonna be a tough job to fill out there. Plus, right now, there is the added concern about which coaches knew what with this shoe thing and all that jazz.

I'm thinking they will keep him.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Ouch: https://thebiglead.com/2018/03/14/steve-alford-is-a-terrible-basketball-coach-and-ucla-deserves-better/ 

[medinabuckeye1]

I think the only place they seemed to care about it was the MSU vs. UM thing.  UM had better wins, including head to head.  But MSU only lost 4 times, and all 4 losses were to top 15 teams, while UM lost more times, including 3 times to non-tourney teams.

Even there, I'm not sure if the committee actually assessed Michigan's losses or if they simply noted that Michigan had more losses and quit there.  
Michigan State only had four losses and all were quite respectable:

• vs #6 Dook, neutral court
• vs #12 M, neutral court
• vs #12 M, home
• @ #20 tOSU

Michigan's four "best" losses are similarly respectable, but their other three were MUCH worse:

• @ #4 UNC
• @ #9 PU
• vs #9 PU, home
• @ #20 tOSU
• @ #54 UNL
• vs #92 LSU, neutral court
• @ #167 NU

I think the committee got it right with MSU above M based on Michigan's three bad losses being significantly worse than any MSU loss.  I am fearful though that the committee would have had M behind MSU even if those three "extra" losses had been on the road against top-10 teams.  

That is the part I don't like, because in my mind bad losses should matter.  There should be a difference between losing on the road to UNC and losing at home to Penn State.  Right now, I'm not sure that there is.  The committee's criteria seems to be:

• How many losses did you have, 
• How many tier-1 wins did you have

If my suspicion there is right, then the quality of the losses effectively no longer matters.  That doesn't make any sense to me.  

[ELA]

Nebraska looked pretty blah last night.  Basically their resume is handling business against a bunch of bad teams, but losing to every decent one, save one really good night at home against Michigan.

Penn State closed strong after a putrid first half offensively, to beat Temple and advance to play the 1 seed, Notre Dame, in South Bend on Saturday.

Seems like in recent years you get a bunch of 1st round NIT upsets where teams that just missed look to not care.  While Louisville and USC were pushed to the limits, overall, you have a really solid final 16.  The only lower seeded team that won was Washington, which was a 5 seed over a 4 seed Boise State.

[ELA]

Seems like in recent years you get a bunch of 1st round NIT upsets where teams that just missed look to not care.  While Louisville and USC were pushed to the limits, overall, you have a really solid final 16.  The only lower seeded team that won was Washington, which was a 5 seed over a 4 seed Boise State.

For comparison, last year you had a 1 seed lose, three of the four 2 seeds lose, and all four 3 seeds lose.  Then all three 1 seeds who won, lost their 2nd game.
I'm assuming they play those games Monday-Wednesday to fill in the gap, and this year they might be worth watching, as opposed to last year, where one bracket had Colorado State, UT Arlington, Akron and Bakersfield left at this point.