2022-2023 B1G Basketball Thread

[MaximumSam]

The Big Ten is in that spiral where you need great Big Men to win the league, but Big Men don't really help you much in the tourney. For that, you need great guards. The teams that have looked the best has great guards (Sparty, NW, PSU). Illinois has no point guard. Purdue has a freshmen back court. Indiana is pretty average in the backcourt. I thought Maryland might get somewhere with Jahmir Young, but getting Bammer in the second round ended that.

[847badgerfan]

The Big Ten is in that spiral where you need great Big Men to win the league, but Big Men don't really help you much in the tourney. For that, you need great guards. The teams that have looked the best has great guards (Sparty, NW, PSU). Illinois has no point guard. Purdue has a freshmen back court. Indiana is pretty average in the backcourt. I thought Maryland might get somewhere with Jahmir Young, but getting Bammer in the second round ended that.

UW has pretty good guard play, and only one true big man. There is no depth in the front court, and that killed them.

[MaximumSam]

UW has pretty good guard play, and only one true big man. There is no depth in the front court, and that killed them.

Helping them in their tourney though.

[medinabuckeye1]

Updated for the first weekend of the 2023 Tournament:

It has been 39 years since expansion to 64 teams in 1985 but there have only been 38 tournaments due to the COVID-19 cancellation in 2020.  Thus, there have been 152 of each seed.  

Earlier, @ELA and I had a discussion about the dropoff between #1 and #2 as contrasted to the dropoff between #15 and #16.  I submit this as more evidence for my theory that the dropoff between #1 and #2 is VERY significant:

In the first round where #1 and #2 are playing #15 and #16 the winning percentages are fairly close:

• #1 is .987 against #16, 150-2
• #2 is .928 against #15, 141-11

It is the second round when the #1's and #2's start playing real live opponents with ability where the gap between #1 and #2 really shows up:

• #1's have made it to the S16 84.21% of the time, 128 of 152.  
• #2's have made it to the S16 62.50% of the time, 95 of 152.  
• #1's are .853 against the 8/9 winner, 128-22.  
• #2's are .674 against the 7/10 winner, 95-46.  

The problem is there there just isn't enough data on the #16's to base conclusions on.  We know they are somewhat worse than the #15's in the first round and that the two that did manage to knock off #1 both lost (to #9) in the second round but a sample-size of two is not large enough.  

I don't disagree with ELA entirely.  There IS a big dropoff between #15 and #16.  My point is simply that I think the #1's are, in general, a breed apart. There are exceptions (cough - Purdue - cough) but, in general, the #1's are just INCREDIBLY good teams.  

The other thing that stands out to me is the HUMONGOUS dropoff between #12 and #13.  This shows up in both the first and the second rounds:

If you think about it, the path to the S16 is effectively nearly identical for a #12 (5->4) and a #13 (4->5) and yet:

• #13's have been to six S16's
• #12's have been to more than three times that many, 22

Similarly, the path to the S16 is effectively nearly identical for a #11 (6->3) and a #14 (3->6) and yet:

• #14's have been to two S16's
• #11's have been to thirteen times that many, 26

Similarly, the path to the S16 is effectively nearly identical for a #10 (7->2) and a #15 (2->7) and yet:

• #15's have been to four S16's
• #10's have been to six times that many, 24

Similarly, the path to the S16 is effectively nearly identical for a #8/9 (8/9->1) and a #16 (1->8/9) and yet:

• #16's have never been to the second weekend of the Tournament
• #8's (16) and #9's (8) have been to a combined 24 S16's. 

[medinabuckeye1]

If any of you ever put a shekel or two on games and care about such things, the end of the TCU-Gonzaga game was either one of the all time great covers or all time worst beats (depending on which side you were on) you will ever see.

The line was Gonzaga -4.5.  With 9 seconds left GU had it covered.  From that point on they went from not covering, to covering, to ultimately not covering.

The way it happened was bizarre though.  After two ft put GU up by 7 with 9 seconds left TCU comes down and hits a 3 with under 5 seconds left to cut it to 4.  After the Zags successfully inbounded the ball it appeared TCU was just going to let them run the clock out but a kid decides to reach  in with 0.7 seconds to send Gonzaga to the line.

Having TCU +4.5 I was apoplectic at this.  It was actually going to be the second game of the tournament I had lost with a meaningless foul with 0.7 seconds left.  The Gonzaga kid hits both shots to put them up by 6 and seemingly seal my fate.

But on the inbound instead of just lazily tossing it in and letting the clock run out the TCU kid just rolls it down the court and Gonzaga just lets him.  So, the ball is slowly rolling down the court until a kid from TCU picks it up from about 25 feet and bottoms one out at the buzzer.  Ball game.  And you could hear audible groans from the crowd when it went in.

One of the reasons I don't bet sports is exactly this. There isn't much that is more frustrating than losing money to the fact that the motivation of the team you bet on is NOT the same as your motivation.

Ie, in your example, you effectively bet that TCU could play Gonzaga to within 4.5 points and TCU more-or-less proved you right by being within four with five seconds to go.

At that point, however, the motivations of the teams diverged substantially from those of the gamblers:

• TCU bettors had it covered and just wanted the clock to roll.
• Gonzaga bettors desperately needed a point.
• TCU needed a four point swing so they were effectively hopeless.
• Gonzaga had it won and just wanted the clock to roll.

It is no different if you bet a 4.5 point favorite in football and at the end of the game they are up three, first-and-goal inside the 10. If they tried the FG it is probably a 95% play and you'd win your bet with a six point win but they have no reason to try it so they just take a knee and you lose. It sucks because you were "right" in the sense that they *COULD* have won by more than four points but they effectively chose to only win by three because it doesn't matter to them.

[bayareabadger]

UW has pretty good guard play, and only one true big man. There is no depth in the front court, and that killed them.

The guard play was below program standard. Could’ve been bailed out by a very good frontcourt, but neither of the starting bags delivered average seasons for the position.

[medinabuckeye1]

Way to be objective, lol.

I wanted to come back to this:

The B1G this year obviously did NOT have a strong top team. Purdue ended up winning the league at 15-5 and that is not as good as the usual, looking back (teams .750 or better in league games):

• 15-5 both UW and IL in 2022
• 14-3 M in 2021 and 16-4 IL
• N/a in 2020
• 16-4 MSU and PU and 15-5 M in 2019
• 16-2 MSU and 15-3 PU and tOSU in 2018
• 14-4 PU in 2017
• 15-3 IU in 2016
• 16-2 UW and 14-4 UMD in 2015

OTOH, our league had incredible depth this year because only Minnesota truly sucked. The other 13 teams were basically all mediocre with only minor variability.

[Kris60]

I’m not surprised about the disparity between 12 and 13 seeds.  Historically, the 13-16 seeds are all mid-major AQ schools.  Usually the lowest seed an at-large will get is 12.

So, really, a lot of 12 seeds are teams the committee believe deserve to be in while the 13 seeds are teams the committee have  to put in, but wouldn’t make it in otherwise.

Of the 12 seeds that have made the Sweet 16 I’d be interested to see the breakdown of power conference vs mid-major schools. My guess is the majority were from a power conference.

[847badgerfan]

The guard play was below program standard. Could’ve been bailed out by a very good frontcourt, but neither of the starting bags delivered average seasons for the position.

Oh, I agree, but it was not terrible. They were decent, but that's below standard. The standard is pretty darn high.

[847badgerfan]

Off. I don't think I'll be able to watch this next game at Oregon. This is not good for eyes.

[rolltidefan]

I know a pack of crows is called a murder, but I think an Alabama 4 on 1 is too

ela, this is low. not only are you being obtuse and willfully ignorant of the facts, you're making jokes about a situation in which 1 life was ended and multiple others ruined. honestly, i expect better of this sub and you in particular.

(despicable pic of assholes)

(not sure why, but the pic wont show up when quoting you)
these assholes (there were 2 wearing the shit) were derided by other bama fans (and non-bama fans) at the sec tourney, kicked out for the remainder of the tourney. at least 1 was shamed enough to turn it inside out. I hope they are banned from all bama/sec facilities for life.

[rolltidefan]

terps, if any are on here, y'all played a great game. largely controlled the game. just got some unfavorable calls early on, got in foul trouble, and couldn't hit some shots. good game and good luck in the future.

[medinabuckeye1]

ela, this is low. not only are you being obtuse and willfully ignorant of the facts, you're making jokes about a situation in which 1 life was ended and multiple others ruined. honestly, i expect better of this sub and you in particular.

I haven't followed this story very closely but here are the alleged (although basically undeniable) facts as I understand them:

• A Bama BB player (subsequently kicked off the team although that is largely irrelevant since he is in jail anyway so it is not like he would be playing regardless) shot and killed a woman whom I believe was a mother. I do not know the relationship between the two people.
• A second Bama BB player who is still on the team brought the firearm to the scene.
• At least one additional Bama BB player who is still on the team was present at the time of the shooting.

No matter how it is spun, that is a REALLY bad look for Bama's BB program. From my fairly neutral perspective (I neither love nor hate Bama BB), my honest "sports" reaction was to wonder if Bama's rather impressive recent rise has been fuelled in part by taking questionable recruits that more established "Blue Blood type" programs may have passed on due to character questions.

I don't know that and I'm not alleging it, I'm just saying that it certainly crossed my mind.

Ultimately if Bama's BB rise WAS fuelled by taking questionable recruits then you (Bama fans in general, not you personally) deserve all the ribbing you are getting and will continue to get. Ie, your program made this bed.

If not, and this was just a dumb luck thing from Bama's perspective then that sucks for you and the program.

(not sure why, but the pic wont show up when quoting you)
these assholes (there were 2 wearing the shit) were derided by other bama fans (and non-bama fans) at the sec tourney, kicked out for the remainder of the tourney. at least 1 was shamed enough to turn it inside out. I hope they are banned from all bama/sec facilities for life.

I get it but basically get used to it. I've been tarred with the worst behavior of tOSU fans and seen that go every which way around here.

[medinabuckeye1]

How does this year's S16 compare to the usual?  Well here you go:

Basically the middling seeds did a LOT better than normal with the very high and very low seeds not doing as well as normal.  Broken into three groups:

• Normally there are about six top-2 seeds in the S16 (5.87), this year there are only four.  
• Normally there are about eight #3-9 seeds in the S16 (7.92), this year there are 11.  
• Normally there are about two double-digit seeds in the S16 (2.21), this year there is only one.  

In round numbers we have three extra #3-9 seeds, two less top-2, and one less Cinderella than usual.