BTT probabilities

[CappyNU]

262,144 scenarios remain for the BTT seeding, and it looks like the best we can do is a tie for 12th. 3,072 scenarios have us ending up there, but it comes down to us and Washington winning both games this week, while Minnesota and USC lose both games. The worst we can finish is 17th, which requires us to lose both games, Oregon, Penn State and Maryland to win both games, and Rutgers to beat MSU.

The most likely scenario if everything goes according to Kenpom, is that we get 15th thanks to that Rutgers loss, giving us a (not-terrible) path of Penn State, Indiana, UCLA, Nebraska.

By the end of tonight we'll be down to 65,536 scenarios, I'll update accordingly.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I'm curious what our odds of getting #14 or higher if we presume we beat Minnesota. KenPom would have us losing to them, so the assumption of #15 assumes a loss there. I would presume if we win that game we're pretty damn safe.

Actually... if I look at it we're in a lot of trouble. Assuming we don't upset Purdue, we can get to 6 wins, which puts us clear of the bottom 4, but we'd have to beat either Rutgers or Washington for the 14th spot and... that's tough. Washington already has 6 wins, beat us, and still gets to play crumbling USC and bad Oregon. Rutgers is tied with us at 5 wins but also beat us and gets to play Penn State at home. We lose any tiebreaker with Rutgers, Washington, or both. Unless there is some bizzarre situation where LOSING to MN and ending up in some crazy five way tiebreaker with Rutgers, Washington, Oregon, and Maryland is somehow BETTER for us and allows us to finish in the top two of those five (I guess that's POSSIBLE since we beat Oregon and Maryland) it seems like it comes down to needing to beat MN and needing Penn State to be Rutgers in New Jersey which is... not impossible but not that likely.

 

[hdhntr1]

I'm curious what our odds of getting #14 or higher if we presume we beat Minnesota. KenPom would have us losing to them, so the assumption of #15 assumes a loss there. I would presume if we win that game we're pretty damn safe.

Actually... if I look at it we're in a lot of trouble. Assuming we don't upset Purdue, we can get to 6 wins, which puts us clear of the bottom 4, but we'd have to beat either Rutgers or Washington for the 14th spot and... that's tough. Washington already has 6 wins, beat us, and still gets to play crumbling USC and bad Oregon. Rutgers is tied with us at 5 wins but also beat us and gets to play Penn State at home. We lose any tiebreaker with Rutgers, Washington, or both. Unless there is some bizzarre situation where LOSING to MN and ending up in some crazy five way tiebreaker with Rutgers, Washington, Oregon, and Maryland is somehow BETTER for us and allows us to finish in the top two of those five (I guess that's POSSIBLE since we beat Oregon and Maryland) it seems like it comes down to needing to beat MN and needing Penn State to be Rutgers in New Jersey which is... not impossible but not that likely.

Reality is that this team is not likely to get to championship game whether we play on Tues or not. But playing on Tues does give us the opportunity to get a couple more wins before we bow out

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

Reality is that this team is not likely to get to championship game whether we play on Tues or not. But playing on Tues does give us the opportunity to get a couple more wins before we bow out

Given our hilarious BTT lifetime performance, I'd be happy with one win

 

[CappyNU]

I'm curious what our odds of getting #14 or higher if we presume we beat Minnesota. KenPom would have us losing to them, so the assumption of #15 assumes a loss there. I would presume if we win that game we're pretty damn safe.

Actually... if I look at it we're in a lot of trouble. Assuming we don't upset Purdue, we can get to 6 wins, which puts us clear of the bottom 4, but we'd have to beat either Rutgers or Washington for the 14th spot and... that's tough. Washington already has 6 wins, beat us, and still gets to play crumbling USC and bad Oregon. Rutgers is tied with us at 5 wins but also beat us and gets to play Penn State at home. We lose any tiebreaker with Rutgers, Washington, or both. Unless there is some bizzarre situation where LOSING to MN and ending up in some crazy five way tiebreaker with Rutgers, Washington, Oregon, and Maryland is somehow BETTER for us and allows us to finish in the top two of those five (I guess that's POSSIBLE since we beat Oregon and Maryland) it seems like it comes down to needing to beat MN and needing Penn State to be Rutgers in New Jersey which is... not impossible but not that likely.

14 is the highest we can get if we only win one game this week, and that only happens if Rutgers loses both games. Even if we win both games this week, we could still end up as the 15th seed if we end up tied with Washington, Minnesota and Rutgers. If we end up tied with Washington, Minnesota, Rutgers and USC though, we take 12th. If we end up tied with Minnesota, USC and Rutgers, we take 14th.

It looks like 16th is now the worst we can finish thanks to Illinois beating Oregon last night.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

Reality is that this team is not likely to get to championship game whether we play on Tues or not. But playing on Tues does give us the opportunity to get a couple more wins before we bow out

I'd simply rather avoid a bottom 4 finish. It's better to bye-out of the first round entirely by not finishing in the basement then being a basement dweller who beats another basement dweller.

 

[CappyNU]

Ok, actually did the probabilities based on Kenpom. It looks like we have a 3% chance to finish as #12, a 1.2% chance of finishing #13 and a 0.1% chance of finishing #16. Too many scenarios right now for me to calculate the likelihood of #14 or 15. Will get a lot more clear around 9:30 tonight.

 

[hdhntr1]

I'd simply rather avoid a bottom 4 finish. It's better to bye-out of the first round entirely by not finishing in the basement then being a basement dweller who beats another basement dweller.

And a lot of others would rather have an additional win and potentially two. That is not saying I want to lose either of that last two, But according to Cappy , we could win both and still end up int bottom 4. I am suggesting that,a at this point, that is not all that bad.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

And a lot of others would rather have an additional win and potentially two. That is not saying I want to lose either of that last two, But according to Cappy , we could win both and still end up int bottom 4. I am suggesting that,a at this point, that is not all that bad.

It's bad. A bottom four finish is bad. It would be really nice to avoid it.

 

[BosCat]

Here's where you can work out/test scenarios: https://bball.notnothing.net/big10.php?sport=mbb
(Unfortunately, you can also go back and change previous results for the ultimate "what if")

 

[hdhntr1]

It's bad. A bottom four finish is bad. It would be really nice to avoid it.

Sorry, but at this point, most of it is now out of our control and it does give us the best chance to get at least one win in the BTT,

 

[macarthur31]

Checking out the kenpom B1G page, and here's bottom 9 of the table:

Team	Overall Record	Conf Record	NetRtg (nat'l rank)	OffRtg (nat'l rank)	DefRtg (nat'l rank)
Indiana	17-12	8-10	+17.27 (43rd)	121.0 (40th)	103.7 (71st)
Minnesota	14-15	7-11	+12.71 (66th)	115.8 (81st)	103.1 (60th)
USC	18-11	7-11	+12.42 (67th)	114.4 (96th)	102.0 (45th)
Washington	14-15	6-12	+14.76 (54th)	116.5 (72nd)	101.8 (43rd)
Northwestern	13-16	5-13	+12.08 (70th)	116.5 (73rd)	104.4 (83rd)
Rutgers	12-17	5-13	+1.84 (144th)	110.3 (156th)	108.5 (155th)
Maryland	11-18	4-14	+3.49 (130th)	111.1 (139th)	107.6 (134th)
Oregon	11-19	4-15	+7.17 (101st)	111.3 (133rd)	104.1 (77th)
Penn State	12-17	3-15	+3.55 (129th)	115.8 (82nd)	112.2 (233rd)

To clarify - Northwestern would score 116.5 points per 100 possessions against an average D1 team; and it would give up 104.4 points per 100 possessions against an average D1 team - the difference between the two is the Net Rating (Cats are +12.08), and that indicates the team's "KenPom Ranking."

All this to say, it's interesting to see B1G teams 10th-14th (USC to NU) as pretty bunched together at +12 with UW being a bit of an outlier at +14.7. However, that is much closer than teams 15-18, which range from +7 to +1.

In terms of efficiency, it's been the best of times (highest Offensive Rating in the Collins era) - this year's 116.5 exceeds the Killer B's of 24 who netted a 115.9. However, it's also been the worst of times (worst Defensive Rating in the Collins era) - this year's 104.4 is the most since the 2015 squad gave up 103.2 per 100. For perspective:

Season	OffRtg	DefRtg	KP Rank	Significance
2026	116.5	104.4	70th	This Season ("Next Rebuild?")
2025	114.3	97.3	44th	Last Season
2024	115.9	99.5	41st	3rd Tourney Team
2023	109.9	94.3	38th	2nd Tourney Team
2020	104.9	101.3	132nd	Buie's 1st Year - the "Rebuild"
2017	111.3	95.5	38th	1st Tourney Team
2014	98.3	94.9	134th	Collins 1st Year

Next year's squad has much room to improve regarding defensive performance.

 

[Baz = Heisman]

I love how we are fretting over being 14th in the BTT. This has truly been a season from hell.

 

[CappyNU]

Well, if we want 14th, we need to beat the Gophers and Rutgers needs to lose their last two. Otherwise we're playing Tuesday.

Edit: 15.1% chance to make 14th per Kenpom.

 

[Baz = Heisman]

Does it really matter? We’re cooked anyways lol

 

[AdamOnFirst]

Well, if we want 14th, we need to beat the Gophers and Rutgers needs to lose their last two. Otherwise we're playing Tuesday.

Edit: 15.1% chance to make 14th per Kenpom.

Well Rugers did their part not upsetting Ohio State, so we're back to relying on Penn State to show life and beat them in Piscataway

 

[rwhitney014]

Fun fact, we're 66 in Kenpom this year, despite our record. Our 2011 team that was 20-14 was 84.

Obviously wins and losses are what matter. And schedules these days are more optimized for advanced rating systems than they were then.

But this team is a lot closer than the record would indicate. Replacing Martinelli's scoring is going to have to come from multiple players, including some who may not be in the program yet. However, last night's defense reminded me of our best teams. A few mistakes here and there and a random guy hitting a million threes sunk us. The eye test suggests they're figuring it out.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

Fun fact, we're 66 in Kenpom this year, despite our record. Our 2011 team that was 20-14 was 84.

Obviously wins and losses are what matter. And schedules these days are more optimized for advanced rating systems than they were then.

But this team is a lot closer than the record would indicate. Replacing Martinelli's scoring is going to have to come from multiple players, including some who may not be in the program yet. However, last night's defense reminded me of our best teams. A few mistakes here and there and a random guy hitting a million threes sunk us. The eye test suggests they're figuring it out.

Thing is... we're not really that close. I agree, this team is not a BAD team by historic standards. Unfortunately, the Big Ten is absurdly stacked in the NIL era. Even our past teams that got into the 40s in KenPom would still be outside the top 1- of the league. We need to be better than ever before to even be AVERAGE. It's a big-time Red Queen situation.

 

[rwhitney014]

Thing is... we're not really that close. I agree, this team is not a BAD team by historic standards. Unfortunately, the Big Ten is absurdly stacked in the NIL era. Even our past teams that got into the 40s in KenPom would still be outside the top 1- of the league. We need to be better than ever before to even be AVERAGE. It's a big-time Red Queen situation.

We’re a lot closer than the 2-13 start or whatever it was would indicate. The Minnesota and Rutgers games early on were big. Iowa and Purdue could have gone the other way. We put scares into Michigan and MSU. It’s a really young team, only one guy who had played a full Big Ten schedule of starter’s minutes. A shame for Nick, but I’m encouraged by the direction down the stretch. The crowd and student section last night suggest others feel the same way.

 

[CappyNU]

After last night's games, our chances of getting 14th...drop to 14.3% thanks to Rutgers scoring 21 points in the final 2 minutes to make what had been a blowout in the 2nd half look much closer.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

We’re a lot closer than the 2-13 start or whatever it was would indicate. The Minnesota and Rutgers games early on were big. Iowa and Purdue could have gone the other way. We put scares into Michigan and MSU. It’s a really young team, only one guy who had played a full Big Ten schedule of starter’s minutes. A shame for Nick, but I’m encouraged by the direction down the stretch. The crowd and student section last night suggest others feel the same way.

This is massive copium. We also got lucky in some close games late and won some close games. We are not very close to the average of the Big Ten and we’re losing our only good reliable offensive player, our do everything star. We need a huge, huge upgrade this offseason. Again, we must have the best NU team EVER to even reach Big Ten AVERAGE.

 

[CappyNU]

Again, we must have the best NU team EVER to even reach Big Ten AVERAGE.

I thought you might be a bit hyperbolic with this statement, but uh...no, we would need to be well beyond our best year ever to make average in the B1G this year. Sports-Reference.com has their Simple Rating System, and right now this season is our 5th-highest rating in NU history, and we're in 15th place. The three tourney teams are spots 2, 3 and 4, and our best season ever? Last year, where we finished tied for 12th. The median B1G team in SRS this year is 17.88, we are 12.37 and our best year ever is 14.4. Last year the median was 16.25.

In Kenpom terms, our best Net Rating ever was last season at 17.02, followed bv the 3 tourney years, the 1998-99 NIT year, the 2010-11 NIT year, and now this year, where we are 12.30. The median B1G team this year is 20.55, and last year it was 18.05.

I really did not realize how tilted the landscape is against us now.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I thought you might be a bit hyperbolic with this statement, but uh...no, we would need to be well beyond our best year ever to make average in the B1G this year. Sports-Reference.com has their Simple Rating System, and right now this season is our 5th-highest rating in NU history, and we're in 15th place. The three tourney teams are spots 2, 3 and 4, and our best season ever? Last year, where we finished tied for 12th. The median B1G team in SRS this year is 17.88, we are 12.37 and our best year ever is 14.4. Last year the median was 16.25.

In Kenpom terms, our best Net Rating ever was last season at 17.02, followed bv the 3 tourney years, the 1998-99 NIT year, the 2010-11 NIT year, and now this year, where we are 12.30. The median B1G team this year is 20.55, and last year it was 18.05.

I really did not realize how tilted the landscape is against us now.

That's what I'm saying! It does seem pretty shocking until you take a quick look at the numbers and realize... holy ****.

My point isn't that the team hasn't gotten better in an encouraging way late - it has, led especially by West really starting to look good, Page getting better, and probably the usefulness of Clayton - it's that people don't seem to realize how far we have to go before we even recover from losing Nicky Buckets. The height to ride the ride has gotten a LOT taller.

 

[ThatadultfromHolland]

That's what I'm saying! It does seem pretty shocking until you take a quick look at the numbers and realize... holy ****.

My point isn't that the team hasn't gotten better in an encouraging way late - it has, led especially by West really starting to look good, Page getting better, and probably the usefulness of Clayton - it's that people don't seem to realize how far we have to go before we even recover from losing Nicky Buckets. The height to ride the ride has gotten a LOT taller.

The team as of late would have been better than a lot of previous NU teams. In the current landscape, to your point, that level is bottom dweller in the big ten. Even the best NU teams would have likely been outside the top 5 teams this year.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

The team as of late would have been better than a lot of previous NU teams. In the current landscape, to your point, that level is bottom dweller in the big ten. Even the best NU teams would have likely been outside the top 5 teams this year.

As we literally just discussed, the top NU teams ever wouldn't even be top 10 Big Ten teams this year. So for anybody who thinks the gap isn't that big, think of the gap between this team and whatever your opinion on the best NU team ever is and then think that that gets us to like 11th or 12th in the conference.

 

[hdhntr1]

I thought you might be a bit hyperbolic with this statement, but uh...no, we would need to be well beyond our best year ever to make average in the B1G this year. Sports-Reference.com has their Simple Rating System, and right now this season is our 5th-highest rating in NU history, and we're in 15th place. The three tourney teams are spots 2, 3 and 4, and our best season ever? Last year, where we finished tied for 12th. The median B1G team in SRS this year is 17.88, we are 12.37 and our best year ever is 14.4. Last year the median was 16.25.

In Kenpom terms, our best Net Rating ever was last season at 17.02, followed bv the 3 tourney years, the 1998-99 NIT year, the 2010-11 NIT year, and now this year, where we are 12.30. The median B1G team this year is 20.55, and last year it was 18.05.

I really did not realize how tilted the landscape is against us now.

Don't really know what these numbers are based on or even mean

 

[macarthur31]

That's what I'm saying! It does seem pretty shocking until you take a quick look at the numbers and realize... holy ****.

My point isn't that the team hasn't gotten better in an encouraging way late - it has, led especially by West really starting to look good, Page getting better, and probably the usefulness of Clayton - it's that people don't seem to realize how far we have to go before we even recover from losing Nicky Buckets. The height to ride the ride has gotten a LOT taller.

B1G's kenpom NetRtg (what it takes for a team to go .500 in conference): For a refresher on Net Rating click here.

Year	2026	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
Net Rating	18.15	19.00	14.87	14.88	13.51	18.68	17.49	16.73	13.76	13.66	12.89	13.12
B1G Rank	3rd	2nd	3rd	2nd	3rd	1st	1st	2nd	5th	4th	5th	4th
Top Conf	SEC	SEC	XII	XII	XII	B1G	B1G	XII	XII	XII	XII	XII
Top Conf Net Rtg	19.56	22.09	16.66	17.99	18.74	18.68	17.49	17.68	16.75	19.81	17.51	16.87

While '20, '21 were the B1G's best years, it dipped in '23 and '24 (coincidence that those were NU's return trip to the dance?), and since adding on the Pac12 quartet ahead of the '25 season, the B1G has boomed. April 2024 is when the transfer portal rules changed to set up modern era of increased player movement. My hypothesis would be one of the results of increased player movement will continue to move more talent upwards to "better conferences" like the B1G.

To this end, it remains to be seen if the 'Cats can get to that 18-19 net rating consistently by the end of this current "cycle" ('29/'30). For me, that's a stretch goal that assumes that Collins can maintain roster cohesion, that those players who do stay make gains, and that they execute the portal effectively. I'd rate myself as hopeful and wanna see Collins give it a go, rather than try a reboot.

 

[SDakaGordie]

I thought you might be a bit hyperbolic with this statement, but uh...no, we would need to be well beyond our best year ever to make average in the B1G this year. Sports-Reference.com has their Simple Rating System, and right now this season is our 5th-highest rating in NU history, and we're in 15th place. The three tourney teams are spots 2, 3 and 4, and our best season ever? Last year, where we finished tied for 12th. The median B1G team in SRS this year is 17.88, we are 12.37 and our best year ever is 14.4. Last year the median was 16.25.

In Kenpom terms, our best Net Rating ever was last season at 17.02, followed bv the 3 tourney years, the 1998-99 NIT year, the 2010-11 NIT year, and now this year, where we are 12.30. The median B1G team this year is 20.55, and last year it was 18.05.

I really did not realize how tilted the landscape is against us now.

This was my primary source for defending why Collins’ teams of years ago that performed poorly from a W/L standpoint were still performing well relative to prior NU teams. There was hope! But agreed that the bar now is way higher with the portal and NIL, the elevated ($) appeal of the BIG Ten, and paid Euro pros entering the mix.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

As we literally just discussed, the top NU teams ever wouldn't even be top 10 Big Ten teams this year. So for anybody who thinks the gap isn't that big, think of the gap between this team and whatever your opinion on the best NU team ever is and then think that that gets us to like 11th or 12th in the conference.

I don’t care what any metrics say. The best NU teams would be better than 11-12th this year. Not buying it for a second. The B1G has 5-6 stud teams. Not 12. We’ll see how many teams the B1G get to the Final 4, elite 8. I day 1 and 2.

 

[ThatadultfromHolland]

As we literally just discussed, the top NU teams ever wouldn't even be top 10 Big Ten teams this year. So for anybody who thinks the gap isn't that big, think of the gap between this team and whatever your opinion on the best NU team ever is and then think that that gets us to like 11th or 12th in the conference.

I think the 3rd tournament team when healthy is as good or better than any big ten team outside the top 5 this year.

 

[CappyNU]

This was my primary source for defending why Collins’ teams of years ago that performed poorly from a W/L standpoint were still performing well relative to prior NU teams. There was hope! But agreed that the bar now is way higher with the portal and NIL, the elevated ($) appeal of the BIG Ten, and paid Euro pros entering the mix.

Exactly, as I posted back in January:

Experience is a different situation though than returning minutes continuity, but it supports your statement here.

In 2010, 16 P6 teams were in the top-50 of Experience, and 9 of them made the tourney. In 2015, there were 15 P6 teams and 8 made the tourney. In 2020, it was also 15 and 7 were expected to make the tourney. This year, it's 32(!), though right now there's maybe 11 or so projected to make the tourney.

Re-checking the data now, and it looks like there's now 33 P6 teams in the top 50 of Experience, and 15 are likely going to make the tourney along with another 8 on the bubble.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I think the 3rd tournament team when healthy is as good or better than any big ten team outside the top 5 this year.

Well there are six big ten top 25 teams so… no. That team was never remotely a top 25 team. It was our best team ever because it was the only of the three tourney teams that was basically entirely off the bubble by selection day.

 

[Baz = Heisman]

I think the 3rd tournament team when healthy is as good or better than any big ten team outside the top 5 this year.

That still eats at me. We would have been a 6 which is a perfect seed for the second weekend. We may never get back to that

 

[ThatadultfromHolland]

Well there are six big ten top 25 teams so… no. That team was never remotely a top 25 team. It was our best team ever because it was the only of the three tourney teams that was basically entirely off the bubble by selection day.

Just my biased opinion but they’re as good as Wisconsin who wasn’t in the top 25 last I looked….

 

[SouthportCat]

I think my problem with this whole line of thought is it drastically underestimates what happens when the guys on our roster actually get better. The barrier to entry is higher, but so is that talent level we are starting with, and so are our player dev mechanisms and results. We have an established track record of developing three stars to high level conference players and even fringe NBA players now (hoping Martinelli joins that club this spring). Our floor is rising along with that of the conference.

The crux of the argument (to me, anyway) is that one NM isn’t enough, we need 4-5 Martinellis to compete in the top half of the B1G.

I’d counter that in Singleton, West, and Gelo we have a core that could easily be exactly that. Kropp has showed skill and in Bannerman we know we at least have size. We have a new “best recruit in our history” incoming next year along with a developmental big with even more size.

I want Page, Reid, and Green back. I think another year with our staff could pay huge dividends. I am confident the coaches will find a bomber with the NIL budget we have.

 

[SouthportCat]

There has never been a team in NU history where “blow it all up and start from scratch” was less appropriate than what we have to work with going into 26-27.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

There has never been a team in NU history where “blow it all up and start from scratch” was less appropriate than what we have to work with going into 26-27.

Well I can think of at least a half a dozen teams where we had more coming back the next year than we do now, but also literally only one person is advocating for “blow it up and start over.”

 

[Baz = Heisman]

Why should we not blow it up and start over? This team is painful as ****.

 

[hdhntr1]

Well there are six big ten top 25 teams so… no. That team was never remotely a top 25 team. It was our best team ever because it was the only of the three tourney teams that was basically entirely off the bubble by selection day.

The first tourney bid was not in question after we beat Mich

 

[hdhntr1]

Well I can think of at least a half a dozen teams where we had more coming back the next year than we do now, but also literally only one person is advocating for “blow it up and start over.”

We have three true Frosh that look to be the foundation for the future that we have seen grow before our eyes with the significant playing time that they have gotten. That is a pretty good start, most similar to the first year with Collin's first class with McIntosh, Law, Skelly, and Lindsey