Which BIG team has the best shot at the sweet sixteen?

[Dryfly88]

I see that stat or similar ones get quoted a lot here. While true, I don't really put much weight in it. The reason #1 seeds make the final four more often than others is because they are better teams. Not because they have this magical #1 label on them. I would be curious to know the breakdown between the individual rankings of the 1 seeds. How often does the lowest #1 seed make the FF? Last year's 4th #1, Baylor, didn't make the Sweet 16.

At the moment we are holding on to a #1 seed by a hair per most analysts. We have got to play better than we are right now.

I'm not following you on this one??

It doesn't matter "why" the #1 seeds have won more championships, what matters is they have.

Since 1985 takes in a lot of years and different teams and different coaches. Of course they are better teams, but they also have the best path. You virtually get a bye in the first game and then to make the S16 you only need to beat a middle of the pack Power 5 team. Every year we have people say it doesn't matter what your seed is you have to win 6 games. I'm not saying that is exactly your point, but seeds do matter. Of course we also want to be playing better than we are now. That goes without saying, but we also want the 1 seed because it gives us the best path to the FF and championship.

#1 - 65 % of the champs
#2 - 14%
#3 - 11%
#4 - 3%
#5 - 0%
#6 - 3%

 

[Chi-Boiler]

I'm not following you on this one??

It doesn't matter "why" the #1 seeds have won more championships, what matters is they have.

Since 1985 takes in a lot of years and different teams and different coaches. Of course they are better teams, but they also have the best path. You virtually get a bye in the first game and then to make the S16 you only need to beat a middle of the pack Power 5 team. Every year we have people say it doesn't matter what your seed is you have to win 6 games. I'm not saying that is exactly your point, but seeds do matter. Of course we also want to be playing better than we are now. That goes without saying, but we also want the 1 seed because it gives us the best path to the FF and championship.

#1 - 65 % of the champs
#2 - 14%
#3 - 11%
#4 - 3%
#5 - 0%
#6 - 3%

I guess my general point is, if a team isn't playing well, it doesn't matter what seed they are. Sure, the #1s have an advantage, but that advantage is based on them being better than everyone else. It's more to do with the quality of the team than their place on the bracket. In other words, I'd rather be a #2 that's on the come than a #1 leaking oil.

 

[tjreese]

I'm not following you on this one??

It doesn't matter "why" the #1 seeds have won more championships, what matters is they have.

Since 1985 takes in a lot of years and different teams and different coaches. Of course they are better teams, but they also have the best path. You virtually get a bye in the first game and then to make the S16 you only need to beat a middle of the pack Power 5 team. Every year we have people say it doesn't matter what your seed is you have to win 6 games. I'm not saying that is exactly your point, but seeds do matter. Of course we also want to be playing better than we are now. That goes without saying, but we also want the 1 seed because it gives us the best path to the FF and championship.

#1 - 65 % of the champs
#2 - 14%
#3 - 11%
#4 - 3%
#5 - 0%
#6 - 3%

Those numbers would be more interesting if 1985 until computer and after computer and after shot clock and so forth. It would be interesting knowing "if" there was a significant difference between some of those milestones. All are buried inside the one data gathering which may or may not sway the numbers any. It would just be very interesting to me to know that, but not enough to do a lot of work to gather it.

 

[GoldandBlackintheSaddleAgain]

1. Purdue
2. IU
3. Maryland
4 ... no one else

Agree with those but also gonna add MSU. Know they are not particularly good this year per se but also would not surprise me (but would sort of disgust me) to see them potentially get hot

Especially if that one short, transfer guard (name escapes me) who has gone bezerker a few times is on his game

 

[bonefish1]

Agree with those but also gonna add MSU. Know they are not particularly good this year per se but also would not surprise me (but would sort of disgust me) to see them potentially get hot

Especially if that one short, transfer guard (name escapes me) who has gone bezerker a few times is on his game

Walker....and yes, Izzo is a great tourney coach. Wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[Dryfly88]

Those numbers would be more interesting if 1985 until computer and after computer and after shot clock and so forth. It would be interesting knowing "if" there was a significant difference between some of those milestones. All are buried inside the one data gathering which may or may not sway the numbers any. It would just be very interesting to me to know that, but not enough to do a lot of work to gather it.

The numbers are there for you to pick and choose whatever date you want.

The shot clock for men's college hoops was introduced in 1985, so not sure where you are going with that one?? The 3 point shot was introduced in 1986. There have been computer "formulas" used for decades. 1985 makes the most sense because that is when the field expanded to 64. To go back further would mean less games played to win. To go forward further just gives you less data to be considered which doesn't make sense either.

We do this every year on this board about this same time. I really don't understand why people try to find reasons why being a number #1 seed is not the best place to be? Of course we want to be playing our best basketball, but we are who we are and so is every other team. The best predictor for success in the tournament is the seed number you have. You can try and parse out some outliers over the years or the huge upsets, but there is no getting around the 65% to the next closest seed being 14%.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Unfortunately, I think Purdue will make the S16 and that's where their season ends. The playbook is out on how to beat Purdue.

That’s about right for this years team.

 

[Dryfly88]

I guess my general point is, if a team isn't playing well, it doesn't matter what seed they are. Sure, the #1s have an advantage, but that advantage is based on them being better than everyone else. It's more to do with the quality of the team than their place on the bracket. In other words, I'd rather be a #2 that's on the come than a #1 leaking oil.

I'm with you, we want to be playing as well as possible when the tournament starts. No argument there regardless of our seed. But in your scenario we don't get to pick how our team is playing. They are who they are. We don't get to say, well I will pick them playing better and give me a 2 seed. Since we can't pick how they are playing we want them to be a #1 because it gives them the best chance of success whether they are playing well or not.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

I'm with you, we want to be playing as well as possible when the tournament starts. No argument there regardless of our seed. But in your scenario we don't get to pick how our team is playing. They are who they are. We don't get to say, well I will pick them playing better and give me a 2 seed. Since we can't pick how they are playing we want them to be a #1 because it gives them the best chance of success whether they are playing well or not.

I think it's a little chicken-or-egg debate. Is a team going to be successful (and have a good chance to continue that) because they're a #1 seed? Or is a team going to be a #1 because they're successful (and have a good chance to continue that). I just think it's as much the latter as the former. Definitely some of both.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

Our book has a selection of seedline over/unders during this time of year. Under meaning better. Purdue's line was 1.5, with odds strongly favoring the under. Today it's not on the board, but UCLA's number is 1.5, but they are -155 for the OVER 1.5. Indiana is 3.5, but -125 to the OVER. -106 to the UNDER. Slight favorite to be a 4 as opposed to a 3.

 

[tjreese]

The numbers are there for you to pick and choose whatever date you want.

The shot clock for men's college hoops was introduced in 1985, so not sure where you are going with that one?? The 3 point shot was introduced in 1986. There have been computer "formulas" used for decades. 1985 makes the most sense because that is when the field expanded to 64. To go back further would mean less games played to win. To go forward further just gives you less data to be considered which doesn't make sense either.

We do this every year on this board about this same time. I really don't understand why people try to find reasons why being a number #1 seed is not the best place to be? Of course we want to be playing our best basketball, but we are who we are and so is every other team. The best predictor for success in the tournament is the seed number you have. You can try and parse out some outliers over the years or the huge upsets, but there is no getting around the 65% to the next closest seed being 14%.

I understand all that...fully aware that enough data may not be there to parse out for those things of interest. As I said...kn owing more precise things for the time it would take to do such will accomplish nothing other than a better understanding. The 3 ball AND shot clock have changed since 1985...as has the computer metrics known today. I suspect based upon experience that when sources of variation are removed from a data set that contains the various variables in play inside the population studied, the sources have some significance and others not so much. I'm unsure I have ever experienced anything to the contrary?

I believe that "everything" has a cause and effect, even if unexplainable at the time. I'm not one that believes in chance although "chance" is what happens when you throw the lack of evidence into the error term and yet I'm fully aware that no repeated measures inside the relationship in question are also misleading as well as not enough data inside the model for a meaningful understanding and that is before trying to normalize a percent in study and normalizing it through the arcsin of those percents. So, yeah...that is a lot of work to get that would be interesting, but not worth the effort to do...at least by me.

 

[Dryfly88]

I understand all that...fully aware that enough data may not be there to parse out for those things of interest. As I said...kn owing more precise things for the time it would take to do such will accomplish nothing other than a better understanding. The 3 ball AND shot clock have changed since 1985...as has the computer metrics known today. I suspect based upon experience that when sources of variation are removed from a data set that contains the various variables in play inside the population studied, the sources have some significance and others not so much. I'm unsure I have ever experienced anything to the contrary?

I believe that "everything" has a cause and effect, even if unexplainable at the time. I'm not one that believes in chance although "chance" is what happens when you throw the lack of evidence into the error term and yet I'm fully aware that no repeated measures inside the relationship in question are also misleading as well as not enough data inside the model for a meaningful understanding and that is before trying to normalize a percent in study and normalizing it through the arcsin of those percents. So, yeah...that is a lot of work to get that would be interesting, but not worth the effort to do...at least by me.

Pick any 10 year period and the #1 seed is still by far best % to win it all. Yes, the 3 ball distance has changed and the time clock has gone from 45 to 30. The computer metrics have changed over the years. Yet the #1 seed still has the highest % since those changes were made. It could be for lots of reasons and once again it doesn't matter "why" the #1 seeds win the most often, it just matters that they do.

The question that was originally asked and the title of the thread "Which B1G team has the best chance to reach S16"? The answer is PU because as of this typing, we are/will be the highest seeded team and the only one in the conference with a chance at a #1. If something happens between now and selection Sunday and we are not the highest seeded team from B1G then that answer will be different.

 

[Do Dah Day]

I understand all that...fully aware that enough data may not be there to parse out for those things of interest. As I said...kn owing more precise things for the time it would take to do such will accomplish nothing other than a better understanding. The 3 ball AND shot clock have changed since 1985...as has the computer metrics known today. I suspect based upon experience that when sources of variation are removed from a data set that contains the various variables in play inside the population studied, the sources have some significance and others not so much. I'm unsure I have ever experienced anything to the contrary?

I believe that "everything" has a cause and effect, even if unexplainable at the time. I'm not one that believes in chance although "chance" is what happens when you throw the lack of evidence into the error term and yet I'm fully aware that no repeated measures inside the relationship in question are also misleading as well as not enough data inside the model for a meaningful understanding and that is before trying to normalize a percent in study and normalizing it through the arcsin of those percents. So, yeah...that is a lot of work to get that would be interesting, but not worth the effort to do...at least by me.

You must be a hell of a conversation over coffee in the morning.
What does your day look like, sweetheart?
Oh just more data-crunching - same-oh, same-oh.How 'bout you?

 

[indyogb]

I'd rank the best chances as...
1. Purdue
2. Indiana
3. Michigan State
4. Maryland
5. Illinois
6. Northwestern
7. Iowa
8. Rutgers
9. Wisconsin (if they get in)

I can't disagree with that. Man, Rutgers just isn't the same without Mag.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

I'd rank the best chances as...
1. Purdue
2. Indiana
3. Michigan State
4. Maryland
5. Illinois
6. Northwestern
7. Iowa
8. Rutgers
9. Wisconsin (if they get in)

Iowa shooting well? #2. Shooting poorly? #9, lol. Problem for them is that relying on being hot from three almost never strings together multiple wins in March.

 

[IMSKRONG]

Iowa shooting well? #2. Shooting poorly? #9, lol. Problem for them is that relying on being hot from three almost never strings together multiple wins in March.

That showed last year. They were hot as can be running into the NCAAT... And lost to Richmond first round... Me thinks the NCAA tourney is gonna be crazy this year.

 

[tjreese]

Pick any 10 year period and the #1 seed is still by far best % to win it all. Yes, the 3 ball distance has changed and the time clock has gone from 45 to 30. The computer metrics have changed over the years. Yet the #1 seed still has the highest % since those changes were made. It could be for lots of reasons and once again it doesn't matter "why" the #1 seeds win the most often, it just matters that they do.

The question that was originally asked and the title of the thread "Which B1G team has the best chance to reach S16"? The answer is PU because as of this typing, we are/will be the highest seeded team and the only one in the conference with a chance at a #1. If something happens between now and selection Sunday and we are not the highest seeded team from B1G then that answer will be different.

Oh I agree with the one seed. I’m curious if the 1 seed percentages are different with modifications to the game. Did it go up or down or stay the same statistically not that it no longer has the best odds . I’m afraid the lack of numbers or data in the areas of interest would require such a large difference in percentage that no difference would be shown statistically even if a more data might show a difference since sample size dictates how big of a difference is needed for significance.

 

[Dryfly88]

Oh I agree with the one seed. I’m curious if the 1 seed percentages are different with modifications to the game. Did it go up or down or stay the same statistically not that it no longer has the best odds . I’m afraid the lack of numbers or data in the areas of interest would require such a large difference in percentage that no difference would be shown statistically even if a more data might show a difference since sample size dictates how big of a difference is needed for significance.

Here's something I find interesting, in the last 10 tournaments a #1 has won 8 of them. So recently anyway the % has gotten higher than the 65% total since 1985.