Jump to content

NCAA Tournament


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, dgambill said:

With an undersized center. Honestly we got better once we pulled Trayce out on the floor and ran the pick n roll and got him out of simply trying to post bigger guys.

Yeah and once the Hoosiers started doing that Trayce started playing better,which has also coincided with him moving up some draft boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think it’s being overstated how bad the big ten was in the tourney this year. Here’s a summary of each team:

Wisconsin - 3 seed, R32; underperformed by 1 game. Really shouldn’t have been seeded that high, had mediocre efficiency metrics for a 3 seed

Purdue 3 seed, R32; met expectations. With the way the bracket shook out, you could argue they underperformed. But St Peters has shown they’re no fluke.

Illinois - 4 seed, R32; although according to the seed line, they should make the S16, they had the worst possible 5 seed in Houston. According to efficiency metrics, Houston should’ve been a 1 or 2 seed. I’d say they met the tourney expectations, and just got a really bad draw.

Iowa - 5 seed, R64; underperformed by 1 game. Seems worse than that since they were a popular pick to make a deep run

Ohio St - 7 seed, R32; met expectations

Michigan St - 7 seed, R32; met expectations

Michigan - 11 seed, S16; exceeded expectations by 2 games

Rutgers/IU - play in 11/12 seeds, R68/R64; grouping IU and Rutgers together since both were in the play in games. Play in games are supposed to be close to a 50/50 matchup, so you’d expect 1 of 2 teams to win. Combined met expectations.

So based on the seeds the big ten got, it basically matched expectations with a few higher seeds underperforming by a game, Michigan over performing by 2 games, and everyone else doing exactly what they were supposed to based on the seeding. The big ten just didn’t have a top tier team this year, even though Purdue looked like they were going to be early in the year. There was just a lot of depth in the conference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kdug said:

I really think it’s being overstated how bad the big ten was in the tourney this year. Here’s a summary of each team:

Wisconsin - 3 seed, R32; underperformed by 1 game. Really shouldn’t have been seeded that high, had mediocre efficiency metrics for a 3 seed

Purdue 3 seed, R32; met expectations. With the way the bracket shook out, you could argue they underperformed. But St Peters has shown they’re no fluke.

Illinois - 4 seed, R32; although according to the seed line, they should make the S16, they had the worst possible 5 seed in Houston. According to efficiency metrics, Houston should’ve been a 1 or 2 seed. I’d say they met the tourney expectations, and just got a really bad draw.

Iowa - 5 seed, R64; underperformed by 1 game. Seems worse than that since they were a popular pick to make a deep run

Ohio St - 7 seed, R32; met expectations

Michigan St - 7 seed, R32; met expectations

Michigan - 11 seed, S16; exceeded expectations by 2 games

Rutgers/IU - play in 11/12 seeds, R68/R64; grouping IU and Rutgers together since both were in the play in games. Play in games are supposed to be close to a 50/50 matchup, so you’d expect 1 of 2 teams to win. Combined met expectations.

So based on the seeds the big ten got, it basically matched expectations with a few higher seeds underperforming by a game, Michigan over performing by 2 games, and everyone else doing exactly what they were supposed to based on the seeding. The big ten just didn’t have a top tier team this year, even though Purdue looked like they were going to be early in the year. There was just a lot of depth in the conference.

 

The problem is... those were the expectations. And that isn't exclusive for this year. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, btownqb said:

The problem is... those were the expectations. And that isn't exclusive for this year. 

Eh, I’d disagree that it’s a consistent issue. last year there were 4 1 or 2 seeds from the big ten, and then everyone but Michigan severely underperformed. 2019 had MSU in the final 4 and PU in the elite 8. 2018 Michigan made the finals. Point being, there’s usually at least one top tier team in the big ten, if not a few teams. That just wasn’t the case this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kdug said:

Eh, I’d disagree that it’s a consistent issue. last year there were 4 1 or 2 seeds from the big ten, and then everyone but Michigan severely underperformed. 2019 had MSU in the final 4 and PU in the elite 8. 2018 Michigan made the finals. Point being, there’s usually at least one top tier team in the big ten, if not a few teams. That just wasn’t the case this year.

2013 is the last time I truly remember there being multiple top tier teams in the B1G. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Kdug said:

I really think it’s being overstated how bad the big ten was in the tourney this year. Here’s a summary of each team:

Wisconsin - 3 seed, R32; underperformed by 1 game. Really shouldn’t have been seeded that high, had mediocre efficiency metrics for a 3 seed

Purdue 3 seed, R32; met expectations. With the way the bracket shook out, you could argue they underperformed. But St Peters has shown they’re no fluke.

Illinois - 4 seed, R32; although according to the seed line, they should make the S16, they had the worst possible 5 seed in Houston. According to efficiency metrics, Houston should’ve been a 1 or 2 seed. I’d say they met the tourney expectations, and just got a really bad draw.

Iowa - 5 seed, R64; underperformed by 1 game. Seems worse than that since they were a popular pick to make a deep run

Ohio St - 7 seed, R32; met expectations

Michigan St - 7 seed, R32; met expectations

Michigan - 11 seed, S16; exceeded expectations by 2 games

Rutgers/IU - play in 11/12 seeds, R68/R64; grouping IU and Rutgers together since both were in the play in games. Play in games are supposed to be close to a 50/50 matchup, so you’d expect 1 of 2 teams to win. Combined met expectations.

So based on the seeds the big ten got, it basically matched expectations with a few higher seeds underperforming by a game, Michigan over performing by 2 games, and everyone else doing exactly what they were supposed to based on the seeding. The big ten just didn’t have a top tier team this year, even though Purdue looked like they were going to be early in the year. There was just a lot of depth in the conference.

 

The top four Big Ten teams lost to lower seeds. The brackets broke great for all those teams and they crapped it away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

The top four Big Ten teams lost to lower seeds. The brackets broke great for all those teams and they crapped it away. 

The Big Ten was deep, but not strong at the top. #9 IU split with IL, PU & #5 OSU. Could have swept PU & OSU. Lost two to WI, but should have at least split & could have swept WI. As flawed as IU was, a few bounces the other way & IU could have been near the top of the B1G.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 13th&Jackson said:

The Big Ten was deep, but not strong at the top. #9 IU split with IL, PU & #5 OSU. Could have swept PU & OSU. Lost two to WI, but should have at least split & could have swept WI. As flawed as IU was, a few bounces the other way & IU could have been near the top of the B1G.

And the tourney probably would have ended about the same way honestly for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 13th&Jackson said:

The Big Ten was deep, but not strong at the top. #9 IU split with IL, PU & #5 OSU. Could have swept PU & OSU. Lost two to WI, but should have at least split & could have swept WI. As flawed as IU was, a few bounces the other way & IU could have been near the top of the B1G.

I remember saying during the 2nd half of the Illinois game before Illinois ran off with it that IU had a shot to win the B1G. Then Northwestern happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Yes. Walked away, "yup that's an Achilles... have fun with one Hou AT" and went back to drinking wine and petting the puppy. Which is two of her favorite three hobbies... the other being bossing me around!

Say 'petting the dog next time'.  Petting the dog sounds so much better than 'petting the puppy'.  I'm just glad you clarified it was her that was petting the puppy and not you.    :coffee:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...